IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.38119 of 2006 S.V.S.Kannan ..Petitioner versus 1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai – 108. 3. District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ..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.8086 of 1998 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.333, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 06.08.1997 and set aside the same; and direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in regular time scale and confer all the consequential benefits from the date on which he was due for consideration to the post of Junior Assistant. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.8086 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Part-time Clerk in Gooduvanchery Village Panchayat in April 1984. Subsequently Gooduvanchery Village Panchayat got merged with Nandivaram Panchayat https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Union and upgraded as Nandivaram-Gooduvanchery Town Panchayat in June 1984. The petitioner was allowed to continue in the Nandivaram- Gooduvanchery Town Panchayat as a daily wage worker. 3. While, he was working as daily wage worker, one post of Junior Assistant was created in Nandivaram-Gooduvanchery Town Panchayat by G.O.Ms.No.584, Rural Development Department, dated 22.07.1987. The petitioner requested the third respondent to consider his name for appointment as Junior Assistant in the newly created post. 4. In the proceeding dated 11.10.1987, the third respondent, rejected the request of the petitioner. It is stated in the order that there is no provision in the rules for appointment of daily wage workers to the post of Junior Assistant. He submitted an appeal to the second respondent, dated 23.05.1992. His appeal was also rejected by the second respondent stating that he was only a daily wage worker. 5. The petitioner made further representation to the Government on 11.09.1992 against the order of the second respondent. He also filed O.A.No.2271 of 1994 claiming the post of Junior Assistant. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order dated 09.05.1994, directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant or for any other post. The first respondent passed the impugned G.O.Rt.No.333, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 06.08.1997 rejecting the representation. 6. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.8086 of 1998 (W.P.No.38119 of 2006) to quash the impugned G.O.Rt.No.333, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 06.08.1997 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant in regular time scale of pay with all benefits. 7. Heard Mr.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without applying its mind to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2271 of 1994. When the Tribunal positively directed to give preference to the petitioner for appointment in a regular post as he was a daily wage worker and also to look into the claim of the workman, on his plea that he was terminated and that he did not stay away from work. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate contends that the post of Junior Assistant in Town Panchayat comes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, a daily wage worker could not be considered for appointment to that post. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned Government Order. 10. I have considered both the submissions. 11. It is relevant to extract the following passage found in the impugned Government Order, which is relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2271 of 1994. "The Government may consider his representation after verifying the facts of the case. Normally a person who had been working on casual basis on consolidated pay should have been preferred for appointment in a regular post when sanction was available. The circumstances of his non- engagement from 1987, should be looked into and if the applicant claim that he had been terminated is correct he should be considered for appointment in any vacancy arising thereafter. If regular appointment had been made as stated by him before 01.11.1987, when he allegedly stayed away from duty, the probabilities would indicate that he did not stay away on his own. The Government should therefore examine this matter with reference to available records and materials and take a decision in the matter without undue delay." 12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of the Tribunal became final. The Tribunal did not pass a simple order to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law. On the other hand, the Tribunal gave a specific direction as extracted above. But the first respondent failed to apply its mind to the order passed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order, in the light of the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 09.05.1994 made in O.A.No.2271 of 1994. The first respondent is directed to undertake the exercises within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rns https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai – 198. 3. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.267. W.P.No.38119 of 2006 NM (CO) GSK 18.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/