STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. P S GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.02.2015 made in W.P.No.28747 of 2004, in and by which, the learned Single Judge while quashing the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.06.2003 directed the appellants to regularize the services of the respondent and to pay pensionary as well as terminal benefits from 01.01.1999 as applicable to the post of Junior Assistant with reference to the entries made in the Service Register.

(2.) The respondent herein had joined as a Medical Attendant on 05.06.1982 in the Medical Assistance Schemes in Ramnathapuram District, the appointment was made by the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram in his capacity as the Chairman of the Medical Assistance Scheme. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted as Junior Assistant in the Scheme and he has served in the said post till his retirement. The respondent claimed pension and made a representation to the Authorities. The Director of School Education by his proceedings dated 30.06.2003 rejected the request of the respondent on the ground that the employees working under the Medical Assistance Scheme are not permanent Government employees. They are only employed under a particular Scheme and they are paid out of the fees collected from the students for the said purpose. Therefore, they cannot be deemed to be Government employees entitled to pension and other benefits. The claim made by the Association of such employees was rejected by the Government even on 08.08.1989. It is also pointed out by the Director of School Education that these employees were not recruited through a recruitment process, they were appointed by the District Heads in their capacity as Presidents of the Medical Assistance Scheme of the particular District.

(3.) Aggrieved, the respondent approached this Court by way of the above Writ Petition, W.P.No.28747 of 2004, contending that he was appointed in 1982 as a Medical Attendant and he has been working in such capacity and subsequently he was also promoted as a Junior Assistant under the very same Scheme and the Service Register was also opened by the Chief Educational Officer, therefore, according to the petitioner, he is actually a Government servant and the Director of School Education was not justified in rejecting his claim.