P SIVAMANIKANDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was first appointed as Technical Assistant (NMR) on daily wages basis in the office of the 4th respondent on 01. 04. 1991 and continuously working on daily wages basis, however, with artificial break. It is stated that the Government of State has taken a policy decision that if the daily wages employees working in Department or in the Panchayat Union for more than five years, they are entitled for regularisation in their respective posts. Since the petitioner is working from 01. 04. 1991, he made a request, on completion of five years, to regularise the services. The same is not considered by the 4th respondent. He made certain representations to the respective authorities, but no positive orders have been issued. Therefore, he approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and filed an Original Application and the same is pending. It is stated that an interim order was issued by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal not to terminate the applicant from the service pending disposal of the Original Application. Therefore, the petitioner is working as Technical Assistant (NMR) on daily wages basis in view of the interim order dated 25. 02. 1998.

(2.) IT is further stated that the wages are paid from 1996 to September 1997 and thereafter, wages are not paid to him though his services are extracted by the 4th respondent, thereby the petitioner is forced to file a writ petition in W. P. No. 334 of 2003 before this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 03. 06. 2002 with regard to the payment of wages for the period from October 1997 to till date.

(3.) THIS Court, by order dated 06. 01. 2003, issued a direction to the District Collector and also the Panchayat Union, who are the 3rd and 4th respondents herein, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03. 06. 2002 and pass necessary orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in that writ petition. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 did not pay any wages and they have issued the impugned order dated 14. 01. 2004 terminating the services of the petitioner.