M. MANI Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Helper in Manjalar Dam Division, on 05.08.1964. Later, he was appointed as cleaner, on 16.02.1965. Thereafter, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer, he was appointed as Driver, on 01.02.1981 and continued to hold the said post till his retirement, on 31.12.2001. Since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of pass in eighth standard and as he was appointed as Driver by promotion, a proposal was forwarded to the Government, seeking relaxation of rule. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 2394, Public Works Department, dated 29.11.1989, regularizing the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of the said Government Order. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents. The second respondent, by his letter, dated 02.03.2009, stated that since the first respondent passed final orders, on 05.07.2002, in this regard, no further action is necessary. Challenging the above said two orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the claim of a similarly placed person, Mr. P. Tharmaraj, Jeep Driver, like that of the petitioner herein, was considered and his service was regularized with effect from the date of appointment, and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, makes reliance upon an order of this Court in A. Balasubramaniam, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 1 LLJ 568.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis, relaxing the qualification, and hence, he is not entitled for the relief sought for.