TMT. T. MALARSELVI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to regularize her service by ratifying the appointment w.e.f. the date of her original appointment dated 13.08.2002 and consequently for a direction for payment of salary w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

(2.) IT is seen the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Cook at Panchayat Union Elementary School by an order dated 13.08.2002. She is continuously working in the said post all these years. However, all of a sudden, her salary was stopped from 01.01.2006 by stating that her appointment was made during the ban period. However, the fact remains that the District Collector through his proceedings dated 30.06.2011 made a recommendation to the second respondent for regularization of service, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is working from the year 2002 and without salary from January 2006. It is also observed by the District Collector that the petitioner is working all these years. Even after such recommendation was made by the District Collector to the second respondent, till this date, the service of the petitioner has not been regularized and the salary is also not paid from January 2006 onwards.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that the petitioner was appointed as early as in the year 2002 and she is receiving her salary till December 2005, stopping the salary all of a sudden and extracting the work from her all these years from January 2006 onwards without regularization of her service is not a justifiable action on the part of the respondents. The District Collector has already made recommendations for regularization of the service. The fifth respondent has also admitted that the service of the petitioner is liable to be regularized. When that being the recommendation and admission of the competent authorities, I am of the view that the second respondent cannot delay the matter further.