A.PALANIAMMAL Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in W. P(MD)No. 14590 of 2014 is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka. A1/3266/2012 dated 27. 05. 2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of her compassionate appointment on 20. 04. 1984 and confer all the consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner's husband died on 15. 08. 1983 while he was working as Office Assistant in the 3rd respondent Kadavoor Panchayat Union Office. As per the scheme, the petitioner made a request for compassionate appointment and the same was considered and she was appointed as Sweeper on compassionate grounds and posted at Kadavoor Siddha Hospital on 20. 04. 1984 as per the resolution dated 31. 03. 1984 of the Kadavoor Union Council. Since the petitioner's appointment was not regularised by the authorities, she made a request to regularise her services. At that time, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 161, Rural Development (E7) Department, dated 26/6/2000 to regularise the service of the employees who are working for more than ten years. The above government order is applicable only for NMRs who were working for more than 10 years, but applying the said G. O. , the petitioner's services were regularised only with effect from 22. 07. 2000 and the petitioner retired from service on 30/6/2014.

(3.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents ought to have regularised her services from the date of her compassionate appointment. Hence, she made a request for regularisation from the date of compassionate appointment and since there was no reply, she filed W. P(MD)No. 17907/2013 seeking direction to regularise her service from 20/4/1984 with all consequential benefits. This Court, by order dated 26/2/2014, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider and pass orders on the representations of the petitioner dated 19. 03. 2013 and 05. 06. 2013 within eight weeks, but the respondents simply rejected the request of the petitioner by order dated 27. 05. 2014, on the ground that she was appointed only as a contingent employee. According to the petitioner, she was appointed on compassionate grounds. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on a decision of this Court in W. P(MD)No. 3634 of 2004 dated 08. 08. 2007 and stated that similar issue was considered by this Court in the above writ petition which was allowed ordering to bring the petitioner therein into regular establishment from the date of initial appointment with consequential benefits. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for setting aside the impugned order.