STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. BASHEER AHAMED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the petitioners and Mr. S. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perused the records.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions are filed by the State represented by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department against the common order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 128 to 132 of 1997 and O.A. Nos. 5271 to 5273 of 2002 respectively. The contesting respondents in all these writ petitions instituted the Original Applications seeking for direction to the writ petitioner to pay salary to the first respondent in all these petitions for the period from February 1996 to July 1997 during the period in which they had worked in the Non-Formal and Adult Education Department.

(3.) THE only ground taken by the petitioner State is the administrative delay in their absorption and in getting the exemption from the Government. Even though the common order of the Tribunal was dated 22.10.2002 there was a delay of more than 1 year and 2 months in moving the writ petitions, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Merely because there was administrative delay, that by itself will not entitle the petitioner granting appointment to the contesting respondents especially when there has been a job guarantee to these persons by G.O. Ms. No. 1 Education Department dated 04.01.1993. When the petitioners had given employment to 13 persons out of 21 by employing them as Secondary Grade Teachers and Drivers, etc., there is no reason why the appointment to these respondents alone should be delayed thereby making them virtually starve without any remuneration. It is too late for the petitioners to come and argue that after 14.02.1996, they were not in service and, therefore, they are not entitled to be paid salary. We find that the Tribunal has done substantial justice to the contesting first respondent in all these petitions and has clearly given direction to the writ petitioner State to carry out their own scheme for job security and such a guarantee cannot be denied by pleading mere administrative delay in implementing the orders of the Government. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.