S.VELMURUGAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks regularisation of his services. The petitioner was appointed as Full Time Watchman in the office of the fifth respondent on 05.02.1999, through a recruitment process, after calling for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange. The appointment was temporary. The petitioner claimed regularisation on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. The same is sought to be resisted by the respondents contending that G.O.Ms.No.22, would apply only for the persons who have completed 10 years of service prior to 01.01.2006.

(2.) In support of the said submission, the learned Additional Governement Pleader would rely upon G.O.MS.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, drawing my attention to Clause vi of the said Governement Order, which would contend that the petitioner would not entitle to regularisation.

(3.) Per contra Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner would draw my attention to the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.29346 of 2014 etc batch dated 14.09.2017, wherein, 3 Clause vi of G.O.(MS).No.74, dated 27.06.2013, was quashed by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Justice V.Parthiban) and a direction was issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners therein on the ground of completion of ten years of service after 01.01.2006. In doing so, the learned Judge had observed as follows: