S SIVAKUMAR Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection, dated 13.11.2009 issued by the third respondent in relation to the claim of the Writ Petitioner for regularization or permanent absorption, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Further direction is sought for to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioner as Technical Assistant in the Respondents/Department or in the alternative to appoint the Petitioner as Road Inspector in the Respondents/Department.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that the Petitioner has completed Civil Engineering and appointed as NMR worker in the Highways and Rural Works Department on 7.11998 and continued as daily rated employee till the year 200The name of the Writ Petitioner was registered in the Nominal Muster Roll maintained by the respondents in the Highways and Rural Works Department. The Petitioner claims that he served about four years in the Department as daily rated employee and therefore, he is entitled to be regularised in the permanent post of Technical Assistant or at least in the post of Road Inspector. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner made a submission that the case of similarly placed persons were considered by the Department and some of the persons were already regularised in the permanent post. In this regard, the Writ Petitioner has already filed an Original Application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had passed an order in the year 2002 directing the Petitioner to continue in service. However, after 2002, the Writ Petitioner had not continued and he was ousted from the service. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking regularization of his service and this Court passed an order in W.P.No.24219 of 2007 on 18.7.2007 directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents issued the impugned order in proceedings, dated 13.11.2009 stating that the Writ Petitioner has completed only 859 days of service and not completed 2400 days of service and accordingly his claim for regularization was rejected. Challenging the order impugned, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that the Writ petitioner served for six years in the respondents/Department and the case of similarly placed persons were considered. Hence the Petitioner is also eligible for permanent absorption in the regular post in the time scale of pay.