1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.407 of 2011 K.Kannan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Engineer in Chief (W.R.O) & Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Chief Engineer, PWD/WRO, Coimbatore Region, Town Hall, Coimbatore. 4.The Superintending Engineer, PWD/WRO, Special Project Circle, Palani, Dindigul. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize his service as Technical Assistant with effect from 01.09.1999 on completion of 10 years of service as NMR Technical Assistant from the date of his initial appointment on 01.09.1989 with all monetary benefits and other service benefits of seniority and promotion based on his retrospective regularization w.e.f. 01.09.1999 including pension benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ******** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER ****** Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize his service as Technical Assistant with effect from 01.09.1999 on completion of 10 years of service as NMR Technical Assistant from the date of his initial appointment on 01.09.1989 with all monetary benefits and other service benefits of seniority and promotion, based on his retrospective regularization w.e.f. 01.09.1999 including pension benefits. 4. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that on the basis of his service, he should have been appointed as a Technical Assistant and not as Work Inspector. Though the petitioner is entitled to the post of Technical Assistant, he was considered only to the post of Work Inspector. When he approached the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has recommended his case. That apart, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.26865 of 2007 for a Mandamus, directing the first respondent therein to regularize the service of the petitioner as Technical Assistant with effect from the date of completion of ten years with reference to his educational qualification as he has completed more than ten years of service as Mazdoor on daily wages in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Works (C2) Department, dated 20.03.2007 and G.O.(D)No.402, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 25.07.2007, by disposing of his representation submitted to the first respondent therein, within a stipulated period of time as prescribed by this Court. 5. By an order dated 10.08.2007, this Court directed the respondents therein to consider his representation and pass orders on merits. Thereupon, an order came to be passed on 08.01.2010, promoting him to the post of Technical Assistant. The said order came into effect from the date of passing such order. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been given an employment as Technical Assistant from the year 1999 onwards. He has also relied on the orders passed in respect of the other employees, who approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that he should have been considered for the post of Technical Assistant on and from 01.09.1999. 6. However, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claim of the petitioner. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11, the counter-affidavit refers about the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 similarly placed persons and also enlisted why the petitioner is not entitled to the post of Technical Assistant on and from 01.09.1999. 7. On considering the grounds taken by the petitioner as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner was elevated to the post of Technical Assistant on and from 08.01.2010, the date on which the order came to be passed and the petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the said authority. 8. Taking such view, I direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2010 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the recommendation made by the fourth respondent dated 15.10.2009, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Sd/-/ Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Engineer in Chief (W.R.O) & Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Chief Engineer, PWD/WRO, Coimbatore Region, Town Hall, Coimbatore. 4.The Superintending Engineer, PWD/WRO, Special Project Circle, Palani, Dindigul. +One cC to M/s/S.Kadarkarai, Advocate, SR.No.20588 +One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.20861 SML rl/7c – 7.7.2011 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.407 of 2011 Dated: 29.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/