ARUMAIKODI Vs. COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 09.04.2013 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of his service from his initial date of appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The order impugned dated 09.04.2013 states that the writ petitioner was employed as Pump Helper on temporary basis on 24.09.1986 and thereafter he left the job on his own volition on 24.03.2004. Further the impugned order states that as on 15.06.2006, the petitioner was not in service. Thus his case cannot be considered for granting of regularization even in accordance with the Government orders issued in this subject. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner had served more than 17 years in the post of Pump Helper on temporary basis. Thus, as per the Government order, the service of the writ petitioner ought to have been regularised. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relying on G.O.Ms.55 Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department dated 15.06.2006, contended that the daily wage employees, employed from 1982 to 01.04.1997 to be provided with the benefit of regularization. Even that benefit was not extended to the petitioner.

(3.) The writ petitioner further admits that two false criminal cases were registered against him in crime No.64 of 2004 and in crime No.34 of 2004. Both the cases were registered under section 379 of IPC. However, the writ petitioner was acquitted in both the criminal cases. Further he is eligible for regularization.