M. DEVATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Masalchi-cum-Night Watchman w.e.f. 10.10.1980 and consequently, direct the respondents herein to disburse the retirement benefits and full pension to the petitioner within a stipulated period.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Masalchi-cum-Night Watchman in the Office of the Agricultural Income Tax, Udumalpet on 10.10.1980 through Employment Exchange and he was promoted as Office Assistant on 1.9.1988 and his services were also regularised w.e.f. 31.8.1988 A.N. in the post of Office Assistant and in the said post his service was regularised w.e.f. 31.3.1988 A.N. and the completion of his probation was also recorded and respective entries were made in his Service Register. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 24.11.1997 and his services in the said post was also regularised and necessary entries were made on his Service Book. While so, on 30.12.2008, a proposal was sent to the 3rd respondent regarding completion of probationary period of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant. When the said proposal was pending in the office of the 3rd respondent, the Coimbatore District was bifurcated and the new District Tiruppur was notified. Thereafter, the 4th respondent by his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No. A4/2297/09 dated 30.11.2009 sought for orders from the 2nd respondent herein for the completion of probationary period from the 2nd respondent herein in the post of Junior Assistant. But the 2nd respondent office returned his Service Register and the connected files to the 4th respondent to regularise the petitioner's service in the initial post of Masalchi-cum-Night Watchman. Without rectifying the said defect, once again his Service Register was sent back to the 2nd respondent by the 4th respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2010 A.N. The learned Counsel further submitted that non-regularising the service of the petitioner in the post of Masalchi-cum-Night Watchman is the mistake committed on the part of the department. But, in view of the same, the petitioner is unable to derive his pensionary benefits and till date, his service register is lying in the office of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.