N RAJESH KHANNA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 31.05.2016 in and by which the petitioner was reverted to his original post of Junior Assistant for not completing the probation satisfactorily, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize his service by fixing the original seniority, as on 30.05.2016 and on par with his junior within a stipulated time.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that the petitioner's father, while working as Superintendent in Madurai District Court, died in harness on 01.06.2006. On 20.08.2007 he was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground. But, the third respondent has failed to pass appropriate order declaring his successful completion of probation. As per the order, vide Letter No.14735/10-1 P & AR Department, dated 08.04.2010, his probation is deemed to have been satisfactorily completed, after completion of 2-1/2 years of service. Hence, he was promoted as Assistant, Bench Clerk-Grade III, Head Clerk and Bench Clerk Grade II on 24.02.2010, 25.11.2011, 30.04.2013 and 12.01.2015 respectively. While so, after completion of 9 years of service, without issuing any notice, the third respondent has passed the impugned order reversing the petitioner from the post of Bench Clerk Grade II to Junior Assistant stating that he has been working without regularization in the entry level post of Junior Assistant and that the promotion given to him is contrary to Rule 36 of the General Rule for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. As per G.O.(Ms).No.80, P & AR Department, dated 02.03.2016, the Government of Tamil Nadu has regularised the services of all the appointees under compassionate appointment in all the departments of the State. The petitioner is also deemed to have been regularised as per the said G.O. But, the same has not been done. It is also stated in the petition that after conferring the benefits of higher post and pay scale, he cannot be reverted back belatedly, when there is no fault on his side. Thus, he prayed to quash the impugned order and also seek consequential direction.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.