R MANIKANTAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.Va.3/39651/97, dated 03.09.1999 and for a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Water Supply Assistant/Attender from 29.03.1993 in the time scale of pay and all attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he studied up to S.S.L.C. and he was working as a Water Supplier in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Kulasekaram from 1990-1992. He was given experience certificate by the Assistant Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Sub-division Kulasekaram. Later, on 29.03.1993, he was appointed as Water Supply Attender in the third respondent Panchayat Union and he joined duty at Gholadi under the Devicode Panchayat. On 22.04.1994, he was transferred to Punnakarai Water Supply Scheme launched by Devicode Panchayat, wherein, he was given additional charge for plumbing work. Since 01.04.1993 till date, he is working as a Water Supply Attender of Devicode Village Panchayat. He has further stated that he is treated as a contingent staff by the respondents and consequently, he is getting only daily rated wages. 2a. THE petitioner's transfer as Pump Operator of Punnakkarai Water Supply Scheme was challenged by one Shibu in W.P.No,8966 of 1994 and this court, by an order dated 28.03.1995 dismissed the said writ petition. Further, the petitioner has submitted a representation for regularisation of his service as a Water Supply Attender on 14.12.1996 on the basis that he is serving in the Panchayat Union as a daily rated paid employee for the past 5 years continuously, without any interruption. THE petitioner's request was forwarded by the District Panchayat Officer on 18.12.1996 however, the third respondent through his letter No.A3/92/97, dated 10.01.1997 stated that there is no Government Order to regularise the services of Water Supply Attender. Hence, the petitioner made a further representation to the third respondent on 12.03.1997 for re-consideration of his continuous service in the Panchayat Union despite the same, no order of regularisation was passed in favour of the petitioner. 2b. It is also stated by the petitioner that the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Munchirai, by his order No.A3/9497/86, dated 28.09.1997 ordered appointment of one P.Nirmal Nesakumar as a full time Water Supply Attender, who previously worked as part-time Water Supply Attender with retrospective effect from 15.11.1984 with the scale of pay attached to the post. 2c. As per G.O.Ms.No.107, P & AR Department, dated 05.02.1987, the Government has issued general instructions to all the Departments to bring the regular establishments on completion of five years service for all the contingent staff and ordered creation of posts for absorption of the contingent staff. It is also made clear in the Government Order that the age Rule prescribed in the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service shall not apply to the contingent staff who is to be given regular appointment. It is further mentioned in the Government Order that break in service upto 180 days may be allowed in recurring 5 years services. It is the case of the petitioner that all the contingent staff who have put in 5 years of service are directed to be given regular appointment and therefore, he is entitled to get his service regularised or atleast entitled to get appointment as Water Supply Attender full time with the regular scale of pay attached to the post from the date of completion of five years of service, i.e. 01.04.1998. On the above claim, the petitioner submitted various representations, of which his last representation was made on 12.03.1997. 2d. According to the petitioner, the respondents are supplying water to the public on payment of water charges and therefore, the respondents are not doing free water service to the public. Hence, even under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment Conferment of Permanent Status Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner is entitled to get his service regularised. 2e. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the Electricity Board Offices, part-time sweepers were appointed on daily rated basis and this court applying the said Act, ordered the Board to give regular appointment within three months. According to the petitioner, he is a similarly placed person with the qualification required for being appointed as a full-time water supply attender and he claims redressal of his grievance on having put more than five years of experience as part-time Water Supply Attender. 2f. Having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this court in W.P.No,6220 of 1998 and this court, by an order dated 29.04.1998 directed the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner within 5 months. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 03.09.1998 gave a reply by stating that the fourth respondent has issued G.O.No.193 Rural Development Department dated 10.06.1997 fixing the salary and stating that persons working in the morning or evening for certain hours only need not be given full time employment, as there is no finance in the Panchayat for giving them benefits and therefore, the full time water supply attender post cannot be given to the fourth respondent Panchayat and the petitioner will be on part time post and his services cannot be regularised. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is once again before this court.

(3.) PER contra, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, while pointing out that the petitioner is only an employee of the Village Panchayat and he is not a Panchayat Union employee would submit that the petitioner is only entitled to have the consolidated pay of Rs.400/- per month as per the Government Orders and there is no power to regularize the services of the employees without creation of new posts.