1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:27.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.11097 of 2011 1.V.Kumar, Associate Professor in Civil Engineering, A.C.College of Engineering and Technology, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 2.R.Narayanan, Associate Professor in Mechanical Engineering, A.C.College of Engineering and Technology, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 3.B.V.Bhuvaneswari, Associate Professor, A.C.College of Engineering and Technology, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. : Petitioners Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai-25. : 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 first respondent to regularize the service of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment and confer all the consequential benefits, without backwages and seniority as in the case of G.O.Ms.No.514, Higher Education, dated 14.12.2005. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Panneerselvam For M/s.C.S. Associates For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate ORDER ****** Pleadings and material on record shows that one Mr.P.K.Palani and 19 others have filed O.A.No.3428 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, praying for regularisation of their service from the date of their initial appointment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The Tribunal, while considering the above said prayer, by its judgment dated 16.10.2003, in O.A.No.3428 of 2003, observed that the temporary service put in by the above said 20 Lecturers between 1988 and 1998, can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the length of service, at the time of retirement. However, the Tribunal has denied the request for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. 3. Material on record further disclose that when 67 Lecturers, who were appointed between 1986 and 1990, on contract basis, sought for regularization, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.232, Higher Education Department, dated 02.05.1997. The said 67 persons moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.Nos.925 of 2003 and 2634 of 2003, and the Tribunal, by its order dated 06.08.2003, passed the following orders: "When finally the Government has decided to regularise their service, the regularization must date back to the date of initial appointment. The applicants are entitled to have their service regularised from the date of initial appointment. But this is only for the purpose of calculating the length of service and the applicants shall not be entitled to any revision of pay, arrears or monetary benefits. With this condition, the applications are allowed and the regularization as prayed for is ordered." 4. In O.A.No.3222 of 2003, filed by one Mrs.C.Vasantha Nayaki, the Tribunal, vide order dated 24.09.2003, has passed the same order. The Government, while considering the implementation of the orders made in O.A.Nos.925 of 2003 and 2634 of 2003, dated 06.08.2003 and O.A.No.3222 of 2003, dated 24.09.2003, have issued G.O.Ms.No.514, Higher Education (I-1) Department, dated 14.12.2005, regularizing the period of service rendered by the petitioners therein from the date of initial appointment till the date of issuance of Government Order, regularising their services, for the purpose of counting such service for pensionary benefits. 5. Material on record disclose that the petitioners are applicants 15,9 and 20 respectively in O.A.No.3428 of 2003 and similar directions have also been granted by the Tribunal, vide order dated 16.10.2003 in the abovesaid O.A. When representations have been made by the petitioners herein to compute the length of service put in by them, for the limited purpose of pension, the Commissioner, Commissionerate of Technical Education, Chennai, in his letter No.11976/A2/2003, dated 21.05.2006, has addressed a letter to the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chennai, and has sought for similar orders, as done in the case of other Lecturers. As no orders were passed on the proposals dated 21.05.2006, the petitioners have made representations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.514, Higher Education (I-1) Department, dated 14.12.2005. In letter No.11976/A2/2003, dated 07.09.2010, the Commissioner, Commissionerate of Technical Education, Chennai, has again addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Chennai, to issue appropriate orders, on the proposals sent on 21.05.2006. 6. Though the petitioners have sought for a Mandamus, directing the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the first respondent herein, to regularise their services from the initial date of appointment and confer all consequential benefits, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 without back wages and seniority, this Court is not inclined to issue a Mandamus, however, deems it fit to direct the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the first respondent herein to pass orders on the proposal made in letter No.11976/A2/2003, dated 21.05.2006 and reminder in letter No.11976/A2/2003, dated 07.09.2010 by the Commissioner, Commissionerate of Technical Education, Chennai, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. SML Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, CHENNAI-25. +1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO.33703. Order made in W.P.(MD).No.11097 of 2011 Dated:27.09.2011 3P/4C RPB : 28.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/