M.SELVARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order issued by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.140, Commercial Taxes and Registration (A1) Department, dated 02.09.2011 and further order passed by the first respondent in letter No. 8427/A1/2013-2, dated 24.09.2014 and the direction issued by the second respondent in proceeding No.H3/31693/2014, dated 05.12.2014 to the third respondent as well as the order issued by the fourth respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/3155/14, dated 02.01.2015 are sought to be quashed in respect of the writ petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner name was initially sponsored by the District Employment Office, Tirunelveli to the Commercial Tax Department, Sivakasi and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on 21.01.1985 in the District Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Tirunelveli. The petitioner joined service immediately. The petitioner continued as daily wage employee for about 6 years and thereafter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities and order of regularisation was issued by the District Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Tirunelveli on 01.10.1993. The order of the authority shows that the writ petitioner was regularised and was working in the cadre of Office Assistant with effect from 01.07.1991. Accordingly, the petitioner was put under probation with reference to the rules in force. The probation was also declared in proceeding dated 04.10.1993. On completion of probation, the writ petitioner was brought as regular member of the service. Thereafter, Selection Grade on completion of 10 years and Special Grade on completion of 20 years were also granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation and allowed to retire from service.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the Government Order granting relaxation was granted only during the year 2011 and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to be regularised with effect from the year 1991. The appointment of the writ petitioner was irregular and not in accordance with the recruitment rules and therefore, the benefit of regularisation given by the Government with effect from 2011 alone is to be granted to the writ petitioner and in respect of the other orders, the same cannot be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. It is further contended that the mistakes committed by the Subordinate Officials cannot be a ground to allow the writ petition. The Government granted relaxation by invoking Rule 48 of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services only during the year 2011 and the benefit of the relaxation is granted only with reference to G.O.(2D) No.140, dated 02.09.2011.