N PRABHAKARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the G.O.(D) No.466, dated 16.8.2007, a copy of which is said to have been furnished to the petitioner on 23.9.2008, declaring the petitioner's probation from 30.3.2005 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 16.9.2008 and for a direction to declare the petitioner's probation and release all terminal benefits as per law.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a part-time Village Headman at Anducode village in Kanyakumari District on 1.6.1975. THE appointment was originally based on the method prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970. As per the said Rules, an applicant should have completed SSLC course conducted by the Government and should have passed the Special Tests prescribed. THE said Rules were extended to Kanyakumari District on 15.11.1973. THE petitioner, at the time of joining service, had completed B.A. Degree course with History as main subject, however, he could not pass all the papers in B.A. Degree examinations. By the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1980 (Tamil Nadu Ordinance 10/80) which became Tamil Nadu Act 3/81, the part-time Village Officers posts were abolished with a view to introduce whole-time Village Officers in charge of village administration. THE said Act was challenged by the part-time Village Officers who became jobless by virtue of the Abolition Act in the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the said case, a memorandum was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Attorney General to the effect that the Village Officers who possess minimum qualifications as required under the Abolition Act, 3/1981, irrespective of their age, would be screened by the Committee to be appointed by the Government and such persons need not make any application or appear for any test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Village Administrative Officer and they will be treated as new appointees under the Act and governed by the Act and Rules framed thereunder and the remaining vacancies will be filled up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 2(a). THE petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Village Administrative Officer under the Abolition Act and therefore, he was appointed by the third respondent as Village Administrative Officer on 8.8.1982 by selection by the screening committee. THE petitioner has passed all the tests conducted in Tamil as per section 6 of the Act and complied with all other requirements and his services were regularised as Village Administrative Officer in 1982. 2(b). Subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.362 dated 21.6.1988, the Government has brought the post of Village Administrative Officer by an amendment into Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and that was given effect from 1980. According to the petitioner, he has adequate knowledge in Tamil and his correspondence has been in Tamil language only and his increment and annual benefits have been given till 1991. However, by a communication dated 15.7.1999, the 4th respondent Tahsildar has called upon the petitioner to produce certificate to show that he has passed Tamil language test. It was replied by the petitioner and in the meantime, he has also applied for exemption from passing the said test. However, relying upon some of the proceedings of the first respondent, the third respondent has issued the proceedings dated 16.10.1999 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken for not passing the language test. 2(c). After receiving copies of the proceedings of the first respondent, the petitioner again applied for the grant of exemption praying the authority to grant the same if necessary, after explaining in detail that all the tests were passed by the petitioner in Tamil language only. THE petitioner has also approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6011 of 2000 and interim stay was granted by the Tribunal which was extended and thereafter, it was transferred as W.P.No.35630 of 2005 to this Court. Since the Tribunal was not functioning, the petitioner moved the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2042 of 2004 for direction against the respondents to consider his representation dated 14.3.2004 and such direction was given by the Madurai Bench of this Court on 16.10.2004 to consider the representation of the petitioner. 2(d). It was thereafter, the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings dated 3.11.2004 informed the petitioner that in view of the Rules 12(A) & 12 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants General Rules, the petitioner could not be given increments, selection grade and other allowances as he has not completed his probation. By the time when such communication was made by the third respondent in 2004, the petitioner has served nearly for 30 years, both as part-time Village Officer for seven years and as full time Village Administrative Officer for 23 years. THE petitioner, in those circumstances, has filed W.P.(MD) No.3731 of 2004 on the file of the Madurai Bench against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and for direction to disburse annual increments including awarding of selection grade and other attendant allowances and benefits from 1991 onwards, without reference to Rules 12(A) and 12(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services General Rules. In the meantime, the petitioner attained his age of superannuation on 31.3.2005 and was relieved from service, however, subject to the result of W.P.No.35630 of 2005. Subsequently, there was an amendment sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition for direction to declare the petitioner's probation without reference to Rules 12(A) and 12(b) of the above said Rules.

(3.) BASED on the said order dated 14.3.2006, the petitioner made representation which was of no use and contempt application was filed. When the contempt application was pending, copy of the impugned G.O.No.466 dated 16.8.2007 was produced. The said order contains a clause declaring the petitioner's probation only from 30.3.2005 instead of declaring the same from 1984, which the petitioner claims to be entitled to. The third respondent has also ordered recovery of increments already paid to the petitioner. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds including that the same is totally against the earlier order passed by this Court; that the denial of benefits for the service rendered for 23 years and claiming recovery is illegal; that the declaration of probation of the petitioner with effect from 30.3.2005 thereby depriving the petitioner of his service benefits for 23 years is totally against the principles of natural justice and against the Rules.