M.SEKAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent viz., Secretary to Government in G.O.(Ms.) No.99, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.3) Department, dated 07.07.2015, wherein, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services and for fixing time scale of pay to the petitioners was rejected and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders regularizing the service of the petitioners and to fix time scale of pay as per the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent viz., The District Collector, Pudukottai and the 5th respondent viz., The Joint Director/Project Officer, Pudukottai, dated 08.06.1999, 25.09.2000, 05.11.2001 and 27.12.2004 and as per the order of this Court, dated 04.04.2013, passed in W.P.No.9871 of 2008.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, even as admitted by the respondents, is that they were appointed as Store Keeper, Accountant, Junior Assistant- cum-Typist and Night Watchman, initially on consolidated pay basis. Their appointments were respectively made on 26.06.1995, 04.04.1995, 01.04.1995 and 01.04.1995. The consolidated pay initially fixed in the year 1995 for the petitioners 1 to 3 was Rs.1,500/- per month. The consolidated pay fixed for the 4th petitioner was Rs.750/- per month. In the EC Meeting held on 30.03.2007 as per Resolution No.5, for the petitioners 1 and 2, the consolidated pay was increased to Rs.5,000/- per month. For the third petitioner, it was increased to Rs.4,500/- per month. For the fourth petitioner, it was increased to Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the admitted case even by the respondents that the petitioners were also redesignated to higher post, viz., petitioners 1 and 2 were redesignated as Marketing Officrs Grade-I and Grade-II respectively. The 3rd petitioner was redesignated as Accountant and the 4th petitioner was redesignated as Office Assistant-cum-Salesman. It is the further admitted case even by the respondents that the petitioners have been continuing in service for nearly 20 years without any break. Therefore, the petitioners made representations for regularization of their service and in this regard, proposals were forwarded by the 5th respondent herein, viz., Joint Director/ Project Officer, Pudukottai to the 2nd respondent herein viz., The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. The 3rd respondent herein viz., The District Collector, Pudukottai, has also forwarded the proposals to the 2nd respondent and the same was kept pending for quite some time. Later on, the petitioners' claim for regularization was rejected by the District Collector himself, by an order dated 20.12.2007. Even though, the District Collector himself had forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent, unfortunately, he himself had rejected the claim of the petitioners on 20.12.2007.

(3.) Challenging the order, dated 20.12.2007, the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.9871 of 2008. By order dated 04.04.2013, this Court has passed an order clearly stating that even though, the rejection of the proposals was made by the District Collector, the petitioners were not relieved from service and they were allowed to continue in service on consolidated pay basis even till date and citing that in various Departments, the services of the persons, who have completed ten years of service, were regularized, this Court gave a direction to reconsider the earlier proposals made by the District Collector and pass orders taking into account the development in the other Departments within a time frame. Challenging the same, the respondents in W.P.No.9871 of 2008 took the matter on appeal in W.A.No.1587 of 2013, alleging that a positive direction for regularization has been given. By order dated 14.08.2014, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal contending that no positive direction is given by the learned Single Judge to grant regularization and directed the 1st appellant therein, viz., Government to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.04.2013, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the matter was again considered, but, unfortunately the District Collector, by an order dated 12.11.2014, once again rejected the request of the petitioners mainly contending that as per the bye-law of the Society, appointment orders were issued clearly stating that their services are temporary and they would be paid consolidated pay only. In the said order, dated 12.11.2014, the District Collector has further stated that salary is paid to the workmen on the basis of the meeting of the Governing body and as the profit earned by the Society and hence, there is no way to absorb them in Government service as per G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR, dated 28.02.2006.