S. RAJANGAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in these writ appeals - W.A.Nos.226 and 491 of 2012 are the Orders dismissing the Writ Petitions - W.P.Nos.26753 of 2008 and 17559 of 2009 dated 28.09.2011 and 06.07.2011 respectively and declining to issue direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the appellants in the post of "Animal Husbandry Assistant " with effect from the date on which the appellants were brought into regular time scale of pay.

(2.) THE appellants in W.A.No.226 of 2012 (S.Rajangam and N.Thirukasu) were originally appointed as Animal Husbandry Assistants on daily basis on 17.06.1981 and 22.06.1981 respectively and were working continuously for more than 16 years. In the Animal Husbandry Department, number of casual labourers were employed on daily wages apart from the regular employees in various institutions such as District Livestock, Farms Veterinary, Veterinary Dispensaries and other institutions. They were appointed as casual labourers in those institutions based on the need and necessity in the above farms and institutions. To regularise those casual labourers and in order to bring them into regular establishment, Government issued G.O.(Ms) No.116, Animal Husbandry Department dated 07.05.1997 sanctioning 826 posts of Animal Husbandry Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs.775 -12 -15 -1030 on temporary basis to enable the Director of Animal Husbandry to bring the 826 casual labourers into regular establishment and to post them as Animal Husbandry Assistants. Based on the said Government Order, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14170/C/97 dated 21.08.1997, the appellants were temporarily appointed as Animal Husbandry Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs.775 -12 -835 -15 -1030. By the proceedings of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Ramanathapuram, in Na.Ka.No.1762/A/03, dated 14.03.2005, the appellants were directed to withdraw O.A.No.7187 of 1995 filed by the appellants seeking regularisation. It is stated that since the Tribunal was not functioning regularly, the appellants could not immediately withdraw the said O.A.No.7187 of 1995. Subsequently, the appellants filed W.P.No.20036 of 2005 seeking for a writ of mandamus to permit the appellants to withdraw O.A.No.7187 of 1995 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 20.06.2005 directing transfer of O.A.No.7187 of 1995 to the High Court to enable the appellants to withdraw the Original Application. Subsequently, the said Original Application is said to have been withdrawn by the appellants. The services of the appellants were not then regularised.

(3.) THE Writ Court held that whenever a scheme is framed to accommodate a particular number of persons, more number of persons are appointed by subordinate officers and thereby bringing pressure on the State Government to issue further orders under the threat of contempt and referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1) and also Union of India and another Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397, the learned single Judge held that the appellants cannot seek regularisation as a matter of right and dismissed the writ petition.