T MANICKAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was recruited and appointed as practical Sericulturist under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and he joined in the said capacity on 1.11.1979 under the control of Assistant Inspector of Sericulture, Kancheepuram. It is the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Kancheepuram in his proposal dated 1.4.1986 addressed to the Director of Sericulture, Salem has recommended to bring the petitioner's services into regular establishment. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4403 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 24.6.2003, the Tribunal has directed the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Kancheepuram to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the various Government Orders in which it has been stipulated that the daily wages employees in the Government service who have put in service for more than 5 years or 10 years continuously should be brought under the time scale of pay and also to take steps for regularisation. Since the Tribunal's direction was not implemented, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.4716 of 2005, which was disposed of on 15.2.2005, directing the second respondent to comply with the Tribunal's order within six weeks' time. Even thereafter, the case of petitioner for regularisation was not considered and ultimately, the second respondent in the communication dated 2.1.2007, after a complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the Chief Minister Cell, has informed that the proposal for regularisation was sent to the Government and orders are awaited from the Government. THE petitioner has filed W.P.No.5574 of 2007 for direction against the Government to pass orders on the proposal sent by the second respondent and that petition was disposed of on 14.3.2007, issuing direction to the first respondent. Ultimately, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 17.7.2007 stating that the Government has not accepted the request of the petitioner since the petitioner did not turn up for duty from 2.5.1997 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be considered.

(3.) IT is also denied that the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Kancheepuram has recommended for bringing the service of the petitioner into regular establishment and what was recommended by the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Kancheepuram by letter dated 1.4.1986 was to increase his wages as that of the skilled workers. The other allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are denied. IT is also stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.2.2006, one must complete 10 years of service as on 1.1.2006 for being considered for regularisation, whereas the petitioner did not turn up for duty from 2.5.1997 and therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for regularisation. As far as two cases mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit regarding K.Mani and K.Raju, it is stated by the second respondent that they were appointed as practical Sericulturist and Reader respectively through the Employment Exchange and they joined duty on 1.5.1972 and 1.5.1973 and they completed 5 years of service as per G.O.Ms.No.436, Industries Department, dated 30.3.1984, whereas the petitioner joined duty only on 1.11.1979.