S MARIPANDIAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order dated 15. 7. 2008 passed by the learned Judge on the writ side in W. P. No. 5167 of 1999, by which, the learned Judge held that the pay and allowance, paid to the appellants between 11. 6. 1999 and 2. 6. 2002 in excess of consolidated pay, has to be recovered, on the premise that the appellants have been wrongly regularised with effect from 11. 1. 1999 instead of 3. 6. 2002, the date on which the other workers who are similarly placed have been brought under regularisation in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 125 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27. 5. 1999. Learned Judge has also taken note of the contention of the respondents that the appellants' services as was regularised with effect from 3. 6. 2002 in the case of others, would not be affected and disposed of the said writ petition, recording the undertaking given by the respondents.

(2.) THE appellants, who were originally writ petitioners, have challenged the order of the first respondent dated 3. 3. 1999, by which the first respondent, on a representation made by another daily wage employee E. Mariappan, Kutralam Town Panchayat, came to the conclusion that the appointment of the appellants as Office Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 is against the process of regularisation effected by the Government by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 125 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27. 5. 1999 and therefore, passed an order that the appellants should have been placed equal to that of other persons and they have to be regularised with effect from 2. 6. 2002, by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 125 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27. 5. 1999.

(3.) THE order passed by the first respondent came to be challenged by the appellants on the basis that the appellants, who were appointed on consolidated basis originally as per the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayat Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistant) Rules, 1988, were qualified as per the requirement, which was only 8th standard. In fact, the first appellant has completed his +2 examination, while the second appellant has completed his SSLC Examination, apart from the fact that the second appellant happens to be a handicapped person.