1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1187 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Office of D.E.O., Karur-7. 4.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Krishnarayapuram, Karur District-639 102. :Appellants/Respondents -Vs- M.Ramasamy :Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.12.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.14262 of 2010. Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus direction the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner within a stipulated time in the light of G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PerF) Daprtment, dated 10.10.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(F) Department dated 29.2.2006. For Appellants:Mr.R.Anandharaj,Government Advocate. For Respondent:Mr.R.Lakshmanan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 08.12.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.14262/2010, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, directing the appellants to reqularise the services of the appellant in time scale of pay from the date of his completion of ten years of service, after verifying the service certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School where the respondent is working. 2.The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as a daily wage Night Watchman in the 4th respondent School on 27.11.1979 and he is still working as a part-timer with meagre salary and his services were not regularised in a full-time post in time scale of pay, inspite of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 29.02.2006. In view of the same, the respondent submitted a representation on 22.09.2010 seeking the relief of regularisation and inspite of the same no orders were passed and as such the respondent was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(MD)No.14262 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would contend that the order passed by the writ Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the post in which the respondent is serving is not a sanctioned post. It is contended that to regularise the services of employees, every case has to be considered on the basis of mode of employment and source of payment and other relevant aspects, as per Government Orders. It is further submitted that Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2006, is only prospective in nature and as such it cannot be stated that the respondent is entitled to be regularised from the date of his completion of 10 years of service. 4.Mr.R.Lakshmanan, learned counsel, who has taken notice for the respondent, would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ court. It is contended that the writ court has rightly directed the appellants to regularise the services of the respondent as night watchman in time scale of pay by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2006. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that in several matters this Court has taken a similar view and those orders have also been taken note by the learned Single Judge while passing the order in the writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in C.Eswaran v. The Secretary to Government, reported in 2011 (1) CWC 358. 5.This Court carefully considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the entire materials available on record, including the order passed by the writ Court, dated 08.12.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.14262 of 2010. 6.The fact remains that the respondent has already completed 10 years of service as night watchman and his services were not regularised inspite of completion of 10 years of service. It is pertinent to that not only G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative (F) Department, dated 29.02.2006, but various other orders were also issued by the Government to the effect of regularising the services of employees working in part-time posts or full- time posts on temporary basis and who have completed 10 years of service But, as far as the case on hand is concerned, the respondent's representation was not considered inspite of those Government Orders which are very much applicable to his case. 7.The perusal of the order passed by the writ court would abundantly make it clear that the writ court has pointed out the above Government Orders, including G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2006, and other orders and also pointed out orders passed in several writ petitions by this Court. In a batch of writ petitions, this Court has taken a similar view of regularising the services of temporary service people on permanent basis once they have completed 10 years of service, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2006. The numbers of those writ petitions have been incorporated by the writ Court in paragraph No.5 of its order. 8.In the decision relied on by the Learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2011(2) CTC 358, this Court has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.6771 of 2007, dated 23.04.2007, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the department against the order of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.956 of 2006, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, directing regularisation of the services of similarly placed persons as that of the respondent herein. 9.The only contention put-forward by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant is to the effect that regularisation of services in the absence of sanctioned post cannot be allowed. We are unable to countenance such a contention for the simple reason that the respondent has completed a period of 10 years service. As such, it cannot be stated that the said post is not a sanctioned post. Equally, yet another submission made by the learned Government Advocate that G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2006, can be treated only as prospective nature also unacceptable and untenable as this Court has taken note of the same in several matters as stated above and granted the relief. In view of these factors, we are unable to see any ground warranting interference in the order passed by the writ Court. 10.Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P (MD)No.2 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Office of D.E.O., Karur-7. 4.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School,' Krishnarayapuram, Karur District-639 102. +1CC to Mr.R.Lakshmanan, Advocate. SR.No.37788. Gb Judgment IN WA(MD)No.1187/2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/23.11.2011/3P/6C.Dated:03.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/