1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03-11-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)Nos.5698 to 5701 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) Nos.2, 2, 2 and 2 of 2011 P.Samayadurai .. Petitioner in WP 5698/2011 K.Venkatasalam .. Petitioner in WP 5699/2011 P.Kannan .. Petitioner in WP 5700/2011 N.Muruganantham .. Petitioner in WP 5701/2011 vs. The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. .. Respondent in all WPs Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned orders dated 9.5.2011 made in Na.Ka.Nos.7018 A1/2008 and 4727 A1/2009 passed by the respondent and quash them and further direct the respondent to regularise the petitioners' service from their initial date of appointment in the regular time scale of pay and with all other consequential service benefits. For Petitioner in all Wps : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondent in all Wps : Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, Special Government Pleader. C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions, challenging an order of reversion, reverting them from the post of Full Time Watchman to the Post of Part Time Scavenger. 2. Heard Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were sponsored through the District Employment Office, Sivagangai and appointed as Part Time Sweeper-cum-Watchman, on different dates viz., 23.9.1994, 27.9.1994, 28.9.1994 and 27.9.1994 respectively. Subsequently, they were appointed on regular basis in a time scale of pay as Full Time Employees with effect from 29.10.1994, 29.10.1994, 29.10.1994 and 31.10.1994 respectively. Eversince October 1994, all the petitioners were working on Full Time basis in the different Government High Schools within Sivagangai District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Since the services of the petitioners were not regularised, the petitioners earlier came up with writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7965 of 2008 and 6423 of 2009. W.P.No.7965 of 2008 was allowed by this Court by an order dated 13.2.2009, directing the Director of School Education to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of services in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court. Similarly, W.P.No.6423 of 2009 was allowed by an order dated 20.7.2009, directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioner with reference to G.O.Ms.No.528, P&AR Department, dated 10.10.1988. 5. Since the above orders were not complied with, the petitioners filed Contempt Petition No.243 of 2010. Thereafter, the respondents issued a show cause notice by a letter dated 29.12.2010 as to why the petitioners should not be reverted as Part Time Employees. After the petitioners gave their reply, the respondent has passed the impugned order, reverting the petitioners as Part Time Scavengers. It is against these orders that the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions. 6. In the separate counter affidavits filed by the respondent, the respondent has admitted two fundamental things viz., (i) that the petitioners were appointed on Part Time basis in September 1994; and (ii) that the petitioners were brought to regular time scale of pay with effect from October 1994. As a matter of fact, the respondent has stated uniformly in para-4 of the counter affidavits filed in all these cases that the petitioners were actually appointed on regular basis by orders dated 29.10.1994 and that they were receiving salary in a time scale of pay from 1994 till this date. In other words, the fact that the petitioners have rendered service for about 16 years on a time scale of pay from the year 1994 till 2011, is admitted by the respondent. In such circumstances, the reversion of the petitioners cannot be made except by way of penalty. 7. The contention of the respondent that the petitioners did not qualify as per the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.528, P&AR Department, dated 10.10.1988, cannot be accepted at this distance of time. The respondent never thought to rectify the mistake, if at all if there was a mistake, within a reasonable time. On the other hand, the respondent suffered orders of this Court in the previous writ petitions and came up with a proposal to revert the petitioners only after a contempt petition was filed. Therefore, there are no bona fides in the exercise of the respondent. 8. In view of the above, all these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. W.P.(MD)Nos.5698 to 5701 of 2011 03.11.2011 Svn/RJ/19.11.11/(2p/2c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/