IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.07.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.Nos.25872 & 25873 of 2009 1.S.Perumal 2.V.E.Bharathi 3.N.A.Kumaravelu 4.G.K.Umadevi ...Petitioners in W.P.No.25782/2009 4.M.Victor 5.G.Rajendran 6.V.P.Dhanasekaran ...Petitioners in W.P.No.25783/2009 Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Educational Officer, Tiruvalalur, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents in both WPs' PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents, relating to the order of the 1st respondent in Letter No.34799/R1/2006-12, dated 16.07.2009 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent in proceeding Na. Ka. No. 92692/A5/E2/2008 dated 12.08.2009 and Na.Ka.No.92546/A5/E2/ 2008 dated Nil.08.2009 respectively and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to bring the petitioners into time scale of pay in respective posts. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Kolandaivelu For R – 1 to R - 3 : Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, Government Advocate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2.Both the writ petitions are filed to set aside the order of the first respondent in Letter No.34799/R1/2006-12, dated 16.07.2009 communicated through the 2nd respondent thereby declining to regularise the service of the petitioners, who are part time workers in the respondent Education Department. The petitioners herein were initially employed through Employment Exchange as Sweepers, Waterman and Waterwomen in the office of the third respondent vide the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 25.08.1994. The petitioners have been for more than 15 years continuously employed in such capacity as part time employees. While so, the petitioners herein approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai, to bring them to regular time scale of pay. In pursuance of abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the proceedings stands transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.35828 of 2006 and the same was disposed of on 12.09.2008 by directing the Government, who is the 4th respondent therein to consider the proposal sent by the District Educational Officer for regularising the petitioners as full time watchman/gardener/sweeper within the given time. The order was not complied with by the authority concerned within the given time. But, this impugned order came to be passed nearly one year, thereafter, in and under which the first respondent has communicated to the third respondent that as the petitioners have been employed as part time workers, their services cannot be regulairsed and the same was communicated by the second respondent to the petitioners by order dated 12.08.2009 and those orders are now challenged before this Court. 3. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 4. The reading of the impugned order would reveal that the service of the petitioners are declined to be regularised only on the ground that they are part time employees. The petitioners have in the typed set of papers enclosed the copies of various judgments passed by the Division Bench and single Judge of this Court involving identical claim and our High Court has after detailed discussion and by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.528 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PER.F.) Department dated 10.10.1988 and the consequential clarification letter No.123 dated 12.06.2000 inclined to extend the benefit of the Government Order i.e., regularisation of their services to part time employees also. But, the Government Order above referred to, issued in respect of regularisation, of such employees on daily wages, who are working for more than 10 years, is silent as to whether the same benefit can be extended to part time employees for their absorption on regular time scale of pay and the clarification is issued in the letter above referred to, to the effect that the part time employees appointed through employment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exchange are also eligible for getting benefits under the Government Order above referred to. 5. However, the Additional Government Pleader would by relying upon the latest G.O.Ms.No.22 seek to justify the impugned order. It is true under G.O.Ms.No.22 the Government has directed absorption of all the daily wages employees in various departments and similar clarification was issued to G.O.Ms.No.22 in letter No.34799/R1/2006- 12 dated 16.07.2009 that the part time employees are not eligible for absorption on time scale of pay as per G.o.Ms.No.22. The validity of the Government Order and the clarification letter above referred to came up for judicial review in batch of Writ Petitions and our High Court has by order dated 04.12.2008, after detailed discussion about all the relevant Government Orders observed that the G.O.Ms.No.22 has not superseded earlier G.O.Ms.No.528 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PER.F.) Department and the conjoint reading of both the Government Orders along with the letters of clarification would lead to an inference that the part time employees, employed through employment exchange, who have been working for more than 10 years in various Government Departments are also, as that of daily wages employees, eligible for absorption on regular time scale of pay. In the same order our High Court has also referred to the earlier order passed by the single judge in W.P.(MD) No.11707 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 as confirmed by the Division Bench of our High Court in W.A.(MD) No.391 of 2007 . As a matter of fact, the absorption so given in pursuance of the orders referred above was subsequently withdrawn by the Government and the same was again challenged in W.P.No.32446 of 2005 and the subsequent writ petition was disposed of on 01.0.2006 thereby confirming the earlier order of this Court directing regularisation of the concerned part time employees. The copy of the orders so made in favour of similarly placed persons are also enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner herein. 6. That being so, the impugned order of rejection of the petitioners claim on the ground that part time employees are not eligible for absorption on regular time scale of pay contrary to the direction of our High Court is invalid and illegal and cannot be legally sustained. The petitioners herein having been employed through employment exchange and having put in more than 15 years of service are covered under the above Government Orders and the clarification letters and are entitled to the benefit of the Government Orders as interpreted by our High Court decision. There is no valid ground available to the respondents to reject their legitimate claim for absorption of regular time scale of pay as such the impugned orders passed without following the earlier orders of this Court is bad in law and are hence liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 16.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 12.08.2009 respectively, and the respondents are directed to issue suitable orders to regulaise the service of the petitioners herein in the existing vacancies based on their seniority, if they are otherwise so qualified. The whole such exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vsm To 1.The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Educational Officer, Tiruvalalur, Tiruvallur District. + 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.No.52415 + 2 cc to M/s. Kolandaivelu, Advocate SR.52574 W.P.Nos.25872 and 25873 of 2009 AKR(CO) Eu 10.08.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/