B. SURESH Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent herein in Letter No.5999/E7/2009-7, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E7) Department, dated 10.3.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the petitioner period of temporary services as Steno-Typist from 27.9.1989 FN to 23.8.1994 AN as duty for all service benefits and direct the respondents herein to issue orders retrospectively regularizing his service from 27.9.1989 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was temporarily appointed under 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules as Steno Typist on 27.9.1989 at the office of Deputy Registrar, Public Distribution System, Udgamandalam. As such, the petitioner also joined in service on 27.09.1989. From that date, he had been working continuously, though temporary in service without any break or adverse remarks.

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner since had participated in the competitive examination conducted by TNPSC for the post of Steno Typist, he had been selected and was appointed as Steno Typist at the respondent department on 24.8.1994, the date on which he joined service as Steno Typist on permanent basis. Therefore, only on the previous day i.e., on 28.1994, he was relieved from the erstwhile office where he was working and the very next day without any break he joined service as Steno Typist on permanent basis. Thereafter, his probation was declared by November 1996. Though at the time of relieving from the earlier service as Steno Typist (temporary basis), the petitioner was drawing Rs. 1470/-, subsequently, on his appointment on permanent basis, his pay was fixed only as Rs. 1200/-. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a representation on 12.10.1994 to the respondents to regularise the period of the petitioner's service from 27.9.1989 to 28.1994 and to count the said period for the purpose of all service benefits including seniority, pay fixation, increment etc., His request was rejected in November 1994 by the Additional Collector and thereafter, again he gave representation on 007.1995 to the second respondent for the very same relief of regularising his services from 27.9.1989 to 28.1994. The second respondent also had rejected the request of the petitioner on 11.1997. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred original application in O.A.No.3522/1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.35908 of 2006. In the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 29.9.2009 directed the respondents, especially, the Government to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a time limit. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the first respondent passed the impugned order on 10.2010 by which the petitioner's request was rejected by adducing the reasons that both G.O.Ms. No. 85, P and AR Department, dated 20.2.1990 as well as the Government letter of the department of P and AR dated 05.2.1996 would not be applicable for the facts of the case of the petitioner and therefore, the request of the petitioner was not considered and was rejected. Challenging the said order dated 10.2010 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has come out with the aforesaid prayer.