IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.10.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.44060 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.5254 OF 2000) N.Sakthivel ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner Cuddalore Municipality Cuddalore. 2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.5254 of 2000 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay the wages for the petitioner from August 1996 to January 1999 as per Rules. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy For Respondent-2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner joined as N.M.R. in the first respondent Municipality in the year 1980. He worked in various capacities. He was paid wages up to July 1996 and thereafter, he was not paid wages. He made repeated request for payment of wages. He made a representation dated 18.08.1998 to the first respondent and insisted for payment of salary. Provoked by his action, he was not permitted to do work from January 1999. In this regard, he made a representation dated 29.01.1999 to the first respondent explaining the above facts. He also made an appeal dated 01.09.1999 to the second respondent. But the same was of no use. 2.Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5254 of 2000 (W.P.No.44060 of 2000) praying for a direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondents to reinstate him in service and to pay wages from August 1996 to January 1999. 3.The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondents state that the petitioner worked as N.M.R. from 1980 to 1996. He used to be terminated once in 89 days and thereafter, he was given employment. After July 1996, he absented from duty. Hence, he is not entitled to the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999. 4.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5.According to the petitioner, he was employed as N.M.R. from 1980 onwards and he was paid wages upto July 1996. Thereafter, though he was provided work, he was not paid salary. He made representations to the respondents requesting to pay salary. Hence, he was denied employment from January 1999. In this regard, he made representations dated 29.01.1999 and 01.09.1999 to the respondents. Though the petitioner categorically pleaded in his petition that he made representation dated 29.01.1999 to the first respondent and an appeal dated 01.09.1999 to the second respondent explaining the above said facts that he was not paid salary after July 1996 and when he insisted for salary, he was denied work from January 1999, the respondents did not specifically controvert / deny in the counter, the submission of letter dated 29.01.1999 and the appeal dated 01.09.1999 preferred by the petitioner. The respondents simply state that he absented from July 1996. The respondents also admit that the petitioner was employed for 16 years from 1980 to July 1996. 6.The petitioner enclosed the letter dated 12.11.1996 of the first respondent addressed to the second respondent. The said letter is pursuant to the telegram dated 08.11.1996 sent by the second respondent directing the first respondent to provide the details of employment of N.M.Rs' on daily wages in the first respondent Municipality. In the said letter, the name of the petitioner is one among the N.M.Rs'. The nature of work performed by the petitioner, as described by the first respondent in the said letter was that he was engaged for water supply maintenance work. Therefore, even as per the first respondent, the petitioner was in service as on 12.11.1996. There is no whisper about the said letter in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents also did not controvert the submissions made by the petitioner of his representation dated 29.01.1999 and appeal dated 01.09.1999. 7.Taking into account all these facts, I am of the considered view that the petitioner was in employment up to January 1999. In these circumstances, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27.05.1999 is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner, since the said G.O., was issued by the Government regularising the services of the N.M.R's, who were continuously working as N.M.Rs' as on 01.10.1996. Pursuant to the said G.O., thousands of N.M.Rs' in various Municipalities were regularisied in service. This Court also issued numerous orders directing the Municipalities to regularise the services of the N.M.Rs' based on the said G.O.Ms.No.125. 8.Accordingly, a direction is issued to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and to regularise his services as per G.O.Ms.No.125. The first respondent is also directed to pay wages from 01.08.1996 to January 1999. The first respondent is directed to comply with the said order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar TK To 1.The Commissioner Cuddalore Municipality Cuddalore. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chennai – 600 005. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.73817 W.P.NO.44060 OF 2006 (O.A.NO.5254 OF 2000) GV(CO) sra 20/10/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/