G. MARAGATHA MEENAKSHI AND OTHERS Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU MUNICIPAL AND WATER SUPPLY ADMINISTRATION ST.GEORGE FORT CHENNAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions for a common relief have been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.154 Municipal Administration and after Supply (MC.5) Department dated 5.12.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, the first respondent herein, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners as Junior Assistant/Revenue Assistant/Bill Collector with all monetary and service benefits with effect from 25.10.2011/25.11.2011, in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 178 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 29.9.09 in Madurai/Tirunelveli/Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation, pursuant to the order dated 25.4.2003 passed in W.P.No. 24513 of 2001, respectively.

(2.) Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (MD) No. 21079 of 2014, assailing the impugned order, submitted that all the petitioners were originally appointed as Panchayat Clerks in the respective village panchayats, namely, Nanangkulam, Vandiyoor, Melamadai, Uthangudi, Thiagarajanagar colony, Pudukulam Bit II, Chinna Anupanady, Iravathanalloor, Muthiahpuram, Thoothukudi Rural, Sankaraperi, Pappakuruchi and the service registers were also opened in their names. Later on, the post of Panchayat Clerk was redesignated as Panchayat Secretary with special time scale of pay of Rs. 2500-5000+Special Pay Rs. 500 in G.O.Ms. No.52 dated 29.8.2011. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted that when the State Government took a policy decision to merge the different village panchayats, namely, Nanangkulam, Vandiyoor, Melamadai, Uthangudi, Thiagarajanagar colony, Pudukulam Bit II, Chinna Anupanady and Iravathanalloor, where the petitioners 1 to 8 are working with the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the third respondent w.e.f. 25.10.2011 vide G.O. Ms. No. 220 dated 28.9.2010 and G.O. Ms. No. 10 dated 6.1.2011, consequently, they are also deemed to have been absorbed and treated as employees of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation without any change in their service conditions, with a specific condition therein that the length of service in the erstwhile village panchayats also should be counted for all purposes. Again, the State Government issued another G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 7.10.2010 merging five village panchayats namely, Athimarapatti, Muthiahpuram, Thoothukudi Rural, Sankaraperi and Melavittan, where the petitioners 10 and 11 are working with the Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation, the fourth respondent w.e.f. 25.10.2011 and consequently by virtue of Section 9(6) of the Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation Act, 2008, they are deemed to be absorbed and treated as the employees of the Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation without any change in the service conditions and their length of service in the erstwhile village panchayats were also treated to be counted for all purposes. Again G.O.Ms.No. 218 dated 28.9.2010 and G.O.Ms.No. 244 dated 5.10.2010 were also issued by the State Government making the four village panchayats, namely, Pappakuruchi, Ellakudi, Alathur and Keelakalkandar Kottai, where the 12th petitioner is working, therefore, they are also deemed to be absorbed and treated as the employees of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, the fifth respondent without any change in the service conditions, as per section 9(6) of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and their length of service in the erstwhile village panchayats were also directed to be counted for all purposes.

(3.) Since all the petitioners were all absorbed on 25.10.2011 and assigned duties in the post of Junior Assistant/Revenue Assistant in the respondents/Corporations 3 to 5 by taking into account similar nature of work in the erstwhile panchayats and qualifications, they are all discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their superiors. Therefore, as per the service rules applicable to the respondents/Corporations 3 to 5, the posts of Junior Assistant and Revenue Assistant are interchangeable and the educational qualifications are also one and the same. Moreover, the third respondent also assigned duties to the petitioners 1 to 8 through proceedings passed in Ma.Ne.2/39037/2010 dated 2.12.2011 as Revenue Assistants/Junior Assistants. Subsequently, based on the resolution No.161 dated 25.4.2012, the third respondent Corporation recommended their case to be brought as part of the employees of the third respondent Corporation. Based on the said representation, the first respondent also issued G.O. Ms. No. 116 dated 19.12.2012 granting formal permission to the third respondent Corporation to absorb them with pay protection in the special time scale of pay and the said government order stated that the posts of absorption would be decided later by another order. Similarly, the fourth respondent Corporation also assigned duties to the petitioners 9 to 11 vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.18244/2010/A1 dated 7.5.2012 as Revenue Assistants/Junior Assistants and based on the resolution No.59 dated 30.3.2012 passed by the fourth respondent Corporation, the first respondent also issued G.O.Ms. No. 119 dated 19.12.2012 granting formal permission to absorb them with the fourth respondent with pay protection mentioning therein that the posts of absorption would be decided later. Similarly, the fifth respondent Corporation also assigned duties to the 12th petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.12.2011 passed in Na.Ka. No. 7655/2011/C1/Ariya as Revenue Assistant and subsequently resolution No. 37 dated 30.4.2012 was passed by the fifth respondent Corporation, based on which the first respondent also issued G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 19.12.2012 granting formal permission to absorb the 12th petitioner as an employee of the fifth respondent with pay protection with a specific order that the post of absorption would be decided later.