A. GANESAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners, who were all originally engaged by the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation to drive bullock carts for the purpose of garbage collection, were absorbed as Auto Drivers, since the corporation took a policy decision to do away with bullock carts and instead purchased three wheelers Auto Rickshaws. The petitioners are all working from 1963 and 1981 onwards. With effect from 12.03.1997, all the petitioners are working as Auto Drivers before which they were given full training by the respondent Corporation. The petitioners made a request to the respondent Corporation to regularise their services. When the said request was pending, the first respondent issued a notification dated 19.08.1989 to fill up the post by calling for names from the employment exchange. The petitioners challenged the action of the first respondent by filing W.P.No.19317 of 1998, and an interim order was granted on 08.12.1998 to the effect that any appointment made is subject to further orders. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted several representations requesting for regularising their services and placed reliance on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999. While the representations were pending, the writ petition in W.P.No.19317 of 1998, came for final disposal. This Court after hearing the parties by order dated 30.07.2008, allowed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: -

(3.) FROM the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is evident that the second respondent has understood the order and direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.19317 of 1998, dated 30.07.2008, in its letter -in -spirit and acted accordingly. Pursuant to the direction, the second respondent has addressed the first respondent on 10.10.2008 and this has been followed by four remainders namely, on 31.03.2009, 25.08.2009, 06.11.2009 and 09.07.2010. It is only in August, the first respondent appears to have responded to the various communications of the second respondent and by proceedings dated