V ESLA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records in relation to the order of rejection passed by the fourth respondent, vide proceedings, dated 30.04.2010 and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.74 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013. Further, direction is sought for to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from her date of appointment on 12.02.1982.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper at Irenipuram Primary School in the year 1982 and she was allowed to continue in service for considerable length of time. Therefore, the petitioner seeks regularization and permanent absorption in a sanctioned post in the time scale of pay. The writ petitioner was initially appointed on consolidated pay as part time sweeper and based on the length of service, she made a representation stating that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02006 to regularize the temporary employees on completion of 10 years of service. However, the benefit of said G.O.Ms.No.22 has not been extended to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the Government modified the said Government Order and issued revised order in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, in which, lot of conditions were imposed for regularisation. Aggrieved from and out of the Government Orders, the writ petitioner is seeking regularization on the ground that she had already served for more than 10 years and therefore, she is eligible to be regularized in a permanent post.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents state that the writ petitioner was appointed as Part time sweeper and mere length of service cannot be a ground for grant of regularization and permanent absorption. This apart, the writ petitioner was initially appointed on consolidated pay and at any point of time, she was brought under the regular establishment. This being the factum of the case, the writ petition deserves no further consideration at all.