SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Vs. RUCKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2013 made in W.P.No.27478 of 2013, in and by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent seeking a direction to regularize the services of her husband viz., one V.Jayaramu from the date of his initial appointment viz., 02.06.1982 in the post of sweeper and consequently sanction family pension and the other benefits along with arrears of pay as per the Rules.

(2.) The case of the respondent before the Writ court was that her husband V.Jayaramu was appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the Government Higher Secondary School, Nelli Marathu Kandigai, Sathyavedu, Thiruvallore District on 006.198 The said appointment was also approved by the Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram in his proceedings dated 09.01.1983. It is the claim of the respondent that the said V.Jayaramu was in continuous service, he was also admitted to Family Benefit Fund Scheme with effect from 01.07.1991 and a nomination was also obtained in favour of the respondent at the time of admission into the Family Benefit Fund.

(3.) The respondent would further claim that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006, in and by which, the Government decided to regularize the services of those daily wage employees working in all Government Department who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. Relying upon the said G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, several similarly placed persons were regularized, however the services of the petitioner's husband were not regularized. The petitioner's husband died in harness on 20.12.200 It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband had completed 10 years of service on the date of his death viz., 20.12.2003 and he is entitled to the benefits conferred on such daily wage employees under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. The services of the petitioner's husband were not regularized, pursuant to the said G.O, only due to the fact that he had died in harness on 20.12.200