STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. C.VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2016 made in W.P.No.7800 of 2016, by which the writ Court, directed the appellants to regularise the services of the first respondent from 13.10.1983 to 07.08.1986, with all service and attendant benefits, as per the relevant service rules, governing the service condition of the first respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows: First respondent joined as a Peon and subsequently, re-designated as Office Assistant, in the erstwhile Aided Management of Madras Hindu Sevak Sangh Aided High School. He was relieved from service by the management and there was a battle between the Management of School and the first respondent, and ultimately he was reinstated in service on 08.08.1986. Thereafter, he was redeployed to the 4th appellant school on 10.10.1990 and he joined the said school on the same day. First respondent made a representation seeking for regularisation of his services from the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.822, Education Department, dated 16.08.1991, which gave relaxation for those who were appointed, without resorting to employment exchange for appointment. First respondent also sought for, regularisation from the initial date of his appointment, i.e. 16.07.1979. Since there was no reply, first respondent filed W.P.No.18091 of 1996 for the abovesaid relief. The said writ petition was allowed with a positive direction. In compliance of the said order, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.62 School Education Department, dated 18.06.2004, wherein the Government, after having considered the request of the first respondent for regularisation of service, though had agreed to regularise his service from 16.07.1979, refused to accept to regularise his services from the date i.e. 13.10.1983 to 07.08.1986, for the purpose of service benefits.

(3.) It is the grievance of the first respondent, that though he had obtained a favourable order in WP No.18091 of 1996 on 17.08.2000, the same was not complied with fully and partial relief alone was given to him. Therefore, first respondent sent several representations during 2007, 2008 as well as 2009. As none of the representation evoked any response, the first respondent has filed W.P.No.7800 of 2010.