M. BALAGURU Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Mazdoor in Public (Election) Department on daily wage basis on 1.4.1991 in the State Secretariat. According to him, he had worked from 11.7.1991 to August 1992 and served for more than 250 days as Mazdoor. He was also issued with temporary Pass by the respondent during his period of employment. According to the petitioner, since he had served continuously for 270 days, he was entitled to be regularized by absorbing him as permanent employee. In this regard, it appears that a representation has been submitted by the petitioner on 19.7.1996 to the Government, seeking to absorb him as office Assistant on the ground that he had served for more than 270 days as daily wage mazdoor. In support of his appointment, the petitioner has also enclosed temporary pass issued to him by the Department. According to the petitioner, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 524 P and AR Department dated 20.6.1984 and G.O.Ms. No. 92 P and AR Department, dated 30.01.1986 providing for absorption of daily wage mazdoors in various departments by relaxing the rules relating to age, qualification and also sponsorship from the employment exchange, etc. However, since no proper response was forth coming from the authorities concerned, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P. No. 11384 of 2013. This Court, by order dated 25.4.2013, was pleased to issue direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order dated 29.8.2013, rejecting the request of the petitioner and the said rejection order is put to challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He would submit that in view of two aforesaid Government Orders, the petitioner who is similarly placed, was entitled for regularization. The only point urged in the writ petition was that the petitioner had served for about 270 days from 1.7.1991 to August 1992. No further details have been mentioned in the affidavit as to what happened between 1992 and the date of filing of the writ petition.