IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P. Nos.26784 to 26787 of 2010 A.Aruldoss .. Petitioner in W.P.No.26784 of 2010 S.Selvam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.26785 of 2010 B.Durai .. Petitioner in W.P.No.26786 of 2010 S.Jambu @ Parthiban .. Petitioner in W.P.No.26787 of 2010 Vs. 1.The Secretary Rural Development Department Government of TamilNadu Fort St.George Chennai-9 2.The Commissioner Directorate of Rural Development Panchayat Raj Jeans Road, Panangal Building Saidapet Chennai-15 3.The District Collector Kanchipuram District Kanchipuram 4.The Block Development Officer Kanchipuram Panchayat Union Sirukaveripakkam Village Kanchipuram District .. Respondents in all WPs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.245/2010 E2 dated 27.09.2010 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents herein to regularize the service of the petitioners and appoint the petitioner as Night Watchman or Office Assistant in the Rural Development Department as per the G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006 of the Rural Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu with all monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner in all WPS : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondents in all WPs : Mr.R.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who are working as daily labourers as Handpump fitter assistants in Kancheepuram Panchayat Union from 1983 onwards are before this Court challenging the rejection order passed by the second respondent by which, the petitioners claim for regularization of service as per G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006 was rejected. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as daily labourers as Handpump fitter assistants in Kancheepuram Panchayat Union from 1983 onwards. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.10 of 2001, dated 04.01.2001, the Government passed the G.O.Ms.No.55,Rural Development and Panchayat Department, dated 15.06.2006 by which the daily labourers totaling to 933 persons would be appointed as Night Watchmen or Office Assistants in the Panchayat Union, on compliance of certain conditions. 3. According to the petitioners, they are qualified to be appointed as Night Watchmen or Office Assistants and in fact, the third respondent recommended to the fourth respondent giving details about the petitioners' service for regularization. In spite of that, the petitioners' service were not regularized. Therefore the petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15301 to 15304 of 2009 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners service and to appoint them as Night Watchmen or Office Assistants which was disposed of by this Court on 04.08.2009. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the second respondent passed an order dated 1.10.2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioners on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the ground that the petitioners did not work as handpump fitter Assistants after 31.07.1997. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.24162 to 24165 of 2009 which was disposed of on 29.3.2010 holding that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1983 and were continuously working till 1997 under the fourth respondent and they satisfied the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006. However, this Court finally directed the petitioners to produce the documents to show that they were in service from 1983 till the date. 5. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 24162 to 24165 of 2009, dated 29.03.2010, the petitioners again approached the second respondent, who rejected the petitioners claim stating that the petitioners produced the documents regarding their service only upto March 1997 and they were deployed as dailywager under the Panchayat Contractors and therefore they are not entitled to get the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.55. The said order is being under challenge before this Court. 6. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the materials available on records. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are employed as daily labouers as Handpump fitter assistants in Kancheepuram Panchayat Union from the year 1983. It is evident from the fourth respondent's letter dated 25.06.2008 addressed to the third respondent that the petitioners worked in the Panchayat Union from 1983 to 01.04.1997 and recommendation was made for regularization. The recommendation made by the fourth respondent on 11.09.2009 reads as follows:- mjidj; bjhlh;e;J fh";rpg[uk; Cuhl;rp xd;wpaj;jpy; ifgk;g[ bghUj;Jeh; cjtpahsh;fshf fPH;fhZk; egh;fs; 1983 Kjy; khh;r; 1997 Koa gzpg[hpe;Js;shh;fs;/ mjd; tptuk; tUkhW https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ t vz;/ bgah; je;ij bgah; tpyhrk; fy;tpj;jFjp gzpg [hpe;j fhyk; 1 v/mUs;jh!; mf!;Od; 2 gp/Jiw ghyd; 3 v!;/bry;tk; rutzd; 4 v!;/$k;g[ (v) ghh;j;jpgd; vk;/Rg;gpuk zp be/22 rpWfhnthpg;ghf;fk.; g$id nfhapy; bjU 10tJ tFg;g[ njh;r;rp 1983?1997 8tJ tFg;g[ njh;r;rp 1983?1997 8tJ tFg;g[ njh;r;rp 1983?1997 9tJ tFg;g[ njh;r;rp 1983?1997 mjw;fhd Cjpak; tH';fpa tptuk; ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;tYtyf foj vz;/ 2276/97/m5 ehs; 13/05/07 fojj;jpy; Cuhl;rpfspy; cs;s ifgk;g[fspy; mt;tg;nghJ Vw;gLk; gGJfis Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth;fns cs;S:h;fSf;Fk; gGJ ePf;fk; bra;a bjhpe;j egh;fisf; bfhz;L ifgk;g[ gGJ ePf;fk; bra;J bfhs;syhk; vd;Wk;. ,jw;fhd bryt[ bjhifapid Cuhl;rp epjpapypUe;J nk;wbfhs;syhk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;gpwF fpuhk Cuhl;rpfspy; Vw;gLk; ifgk;g[ gGJ ePf;fk; gzpfs; bra;J. Mjw;fhd Typj; bjhifapid Cuhl;rpfspy; ,Ue;j bgw;W tUfpd;wdh;/ mjw;FgpwF 01/04/97 Kjy; ,d;W tiu ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; gzpg[hpatpy;iy/ mjw;fhd gjpt[fs; Vjk; ,y;iy vd;gij ,jd; K:yk; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ 8. The aforesaid communication makes it very clear that the petitioners worked from 1983 to March 1997 which entitles them to get the benefits under the G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006. The only condition to be complied with by the petitioners is that their appointment should be made from the year 1983 to 1.4.1997 and continuously worked for ten years. As stated above, the petitioners complied with the aforesaid conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.55. When that is a position, the petitioners should have been regularized in service. 9. Whether the petitioners should have continued in the service of the Panchayat Union after 1.4.1997 is not the condition spelt out in the G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006. Even otherwise it is only at the instance of the fourth respondent by communication dated 13.05.1997, the petitioners were brought under the control of the Panchayat. As per fourth respondent's order, the petitioners were brought under the control https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Panchayat, the same cannot be employed against the petitioners to deprive of the benefits available under G.O.Ms.No.55. 10. That apart, this Court by the order dated 29.03.2010 in W.P.Nos.24162 to 24165 of 2009 filed by the petitioners herein, categorically held that the petitioners complied with the conditions prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006 and the paragraph 10 of the said order reads as follows:- "10. On a perusal of the materials available on record, the petitioners have been appointed in the year 1983 and continuously they were working till 1997 under the fourth respondent. G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006 stipulates that the persons, who have been appointed as hand pump fitter assistant between 1983 to 01.04.1997 and have been working for a period of 10 years would be appointed as night watchmen or officer assistants. So far as the petitioners are concerned, on a perusal of the letter of the fourth respondent, I find that the petitioners have squarely satisfied the said condition. Though it has been stated by the fourth respondent that after 1997, they did not work under the control of them, on a perusal of the letter dated 13.05.1997 issued by the fourth respondent, I find that the services of the petitioners were brought under the control of the Panchayat Presidents. Therefore, naturally, the records pertaining to the petitioners service would not be available in the fourth respondent's office in the year 1997. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the second respondent without considering these aspects rejected the claim of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I hold that the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners approximately in consonance with the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006 and the petitioners are also directed to produce the relevant documents to show that they were in service from 1983 till date in support of their claim. The second respondent is further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. " The aforesaid order would make it clear that the issue was already https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decided holding that the petitioners are entitled to get benefit under the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006. Admittedly no appeal was filed against the said order and the order is binding on the respondents. The Respondents are estopped from re-agitating the issue which attained finality before this Court. When that is the position, the second respondent cannot hold that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of service, as they were working under the panchayat contractors from April 1997 onwards. 11. The last paragraph of the impugned order reads as follows:- jh';fs; 1983y; bghUj;Jeh; cjtpahsuhf epakdk; bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhYk; 1997 Vg;uy; khjk; Kjy; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak;/Cuhl;rp epjpapd; fPH; Typ bgwhj fhuzj;jpdhy;. Cuhl;rpapy; bjhlh;e;J gzpg [hpe;jjhf bfhs;s ,ayhj epiyapy;. jh';fs; murhiz epiy vz;/55. Cuf tsh;r;rp kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpj;Jiw. ehs;/ 15/06/06 d;go mYtyf cjtpahsh; ;/,ut[f;fhtyh;fshf epakdk; bra;a nfhUk; j';fsJ 4/5/2010 njjpapl;l kD ,jd;K:yk; epuhfhpf;fg;gLfpwJ vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ The aforesaid impugned order demonstrates that the petitioners were appointed from 1983 to March 1997 and they were employed from April 1997 onwards under the panchayat contractors. Having found that the petitioners are employed from 1983 to March 1997, the second respondent cannot reject the claim of the petitioners. As stated above, the only requirement as per the G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.6.2006 is that the appointment of the petitioners should be between 1983 to March 1997 and continued to be in service for ten years. The service after April 1997 under Panchayat is not material for regularization of petitioners service. Moreover the employment of the petitioners under the panchayat contractors is only at the instance of the respondents and therefore the petitioners cannot be found fault with for that and their claim cannot be rejected. 12. For the reasoning stated above, the impugned orders are set aside and the second respondent is directed to regularize the service of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petitions are allowed. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. For compliance call on 1-12-2011. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ari To 1.The Secretary Rural Development Department Government of TamilNadu Fort St.George Chennai-9 2.The Commissioner Directorate of Rural Development Panchayat Raj Jeans Road, Panangal Building Saidapet Chennai-15 3.The District Collector Kanchipuram District Kanchipuram 4.The Block Development Officer Kanchipuram Panchayat Union Sirukaveripakkam Village Kanchipuram District +1cc to Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGP SR 63693 +1cc to Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, SR 63654 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 63622 RV(CO) km/4.11. W.P.Nos.26784 to 26787 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/