COMMISSIONER MADURAI CORPORATION Vs. M.MUTHURAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents.

(2.) This appeal filed by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, is directed against the order dated 06.06.2017 passed in W.P.(MD).No. 17276 of 2013. The said Writ petition was filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the appellant, dated 26.07.2012 and consequently to direct the appellant/third respondent to regularize the temporary services rendered by the first respondent/writ petitioner in Madurai Corporation from 06.06.1978 to 25.08.1994 for the purpose of seniority, monetary and other attendant service benefits.

(3.) The first respondent/writ petitioner's case is that he was initially appointed as a Section Writer in the appellant/Corporation on 06.06.1978 and his services were not regularized for 22 years and he approached the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.5530 of 1990, seeking regularization and the said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 31.07.1991, directing the appellant/Corporation to consider the regularization of service, if there is permanent contingency in the post and consider the first respondent along with similarly placed persons. In compliance of the direction issued by the Court, the services of the first respondent was regularized by the appellant/Corporation on 26.08.1994 and he was appointed as a Bill collector. The first respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. While in service, the first respondent submitted a representation to fix the seniority stating that he was appointed on 31.07.1991, the date on which, the earlier writ petition filed by the first respondent was disposed of and for further direction to grant full pension by reckoning the period of temporary service ie from 1978-1990. The respondent relied upon the Rule 11 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 and the appellant relied upon the G.O.Ms.No.437 dated 23.06.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.955 (Finance Pension) Department, dated 23.12.1991, to reject the case of the respondent.