M SANKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER PALANI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim that they were engaged as scavengers by the Commissioner, palani Municipality, in the year 1996 and they have been continuously working. They further state that though initially they were paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 17/-, practically they are paid once in a month at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-i. e. consolidated pay. They have come forward with this writ petition seeking a direction to the Commissioner, Palani Municipality to regularise their service as per G. O. Ms. No. 125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27. 05. 1999 and another Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 21, Municipal administration and Water Supply Department, dated 05. 05. 1998.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the Commissioner, Palani Municipality, it is contended that the petitioners were not all engaged by the Palani Municipality. According to the first respondent, during the year 1990, the Revenue Divisional officer, Palani, had requested the Palani Municipality, vide letter in na. Ka. No. A6/7780/90, dated 10. 09. 1990, to arrange for providing basic amenities for the Ceylon refugees Camp at Sivagiripatti. It is in accordance with the said request made, the petitioners were engaged and accordingly they were paid daily wages. Later on, it was converted into a consolidated pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is further stated that since Palani Municipality was directed by the revenue Department to manage the Ceylon refugees Camp in so far as the basic amenities are concerned, the petitioners were engaged and if once the refugees camp is closed, the petitioners service may not be required. It is further stated that the Government Orders relied on by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

(3.) THE Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani has not chosen to file any counter. However, on instructions from him, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners were appointed by the Palani Municipality and the Revenue Divisional Officer never gave any such request or direction to the municipality to appoint the petitioners herein as scavengers. According to him, the request made by the Revenue Divisional Officer was only to provide basic amenities and not to appoint the petitioners. Therefore, the Revenue Department is not liable to regularise the services of the petitioners.