1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.5059 of 2011 AND M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Mohanambal : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat Building, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner & Director of Social Welfare, Department of Social Welfare,Chennai – 5. 3.The District Social Welfare Officer, Arabic College Street, Mannarpuram, Trichy. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service as Helper from the date of her appointment in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 and direct the respondents to pay all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Nisha Banu For Respondents : Mr.N.Elango, G.A. ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2.By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition, for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service as Helper from the date of her appointment in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 and direct the respondents to pay all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on temporary basis through the Employment Exchange as Assistant Cook on 22.03.1995 in the Government Children Orphanage. The 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 09.07.1997, had regularised the Helpers, who were appointed on temporary basis on consolidated pay of Rs.750/-. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the first respondent issued Government Order in G.O.(T) No.139, dated 24.8.2005 to regularise the service of one S.Paramu by relaxing the service Rules. Thereafter, in the year 2006, the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.2.2006, in which all the Government departments were directed to regularise the services of employees on the daily wage basis, who have completed more than 10 years of service as on 1.1.2006. Thereafter, on 16.3.2009, the second respondent prepared the seniority list of Helpers as on 15.3.2009, in which the petitioner's name was found in Serial No.88. The petitioner has submitted representation on 02.12.2010 to the second respondent requesting them to regularise her service and provide time scale of pay. Since no order is passed regularising the services of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department, dated 28.2.2006 and ordered to regularise those persons working in part time post or in full time post on temporary basis, on their completion of ten years of service and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get her services regularised with time scale of pay on completion of ten years of service. 6. Similar issues were considered by this Court in the following decisions: (i) W.P.(MD)No.11707 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006, confirmed in W.A.(MD)No.391 of 2007 dated 25.10.2007 and the said order was already implemented by the department on 30.11.2007. (ii) W.P.No.18126 of 2008 dated 29.07.2008, confirmed in W.A.No.230 of 2009 dated 03.08.2009, taking note of G.O.Ms.Nos.22, dated 28.02.2006, and held that on completion of ten years of service, services of a part-time employee shall be regularised by the department from the date of completion of ten years. In paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held as follows: "7.The main submission of the learned Government Advocate is that the proposals for regularisation of the part time employees are pending before the Government. When the proposals are pending under consideration before the Government, there is no need to give any direction to the Government to regularise the services of the respondent. 8.We do not find any force in the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate. ON a perusal of the entire materials, it could be seen that the respondent was working for the past 13 years as a part time employee in a Higher Secondary School. Para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.2 P&AR(F) Department, dated 28.2.2006, reads as follows: "3.The Departments of Secretariat may therefore be directed to pursue action to regularise the services of the daily wages employees working in all Government Departments, who have rendered 10 years of service as on 1.4.2006. ..." 9.Though in the letter dated 20.02.1995 it has been stated tht the regularisation shall not apply https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 to the appointment on daily wages employees, if any, made on or after 01.03.1993, in G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, it was made clear by the Government to regularise the part time employees, who had completed 10 years of service. In fact, the services of some of the part time employees were regularised pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions. Under those circumstances, we do not find any justification in delaying the regularisation of the services of the respondent by saying that the proposal for regularisation of part time employees is pending for consideration before the Government. On that ground, the respondent cannot be made to wait for a long period, especially when he had completed 13 years of service, which is more than that of the required service mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the learned single Judge. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the State Government (Secretary), School Education Department, to issue the necessary orders in compliance with the order passed by the learned single Judge, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." The special leave petition in SLP No.1972/2009 filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during March, 2010. The said order was already implemented. (iii) W.P.No.13499 of 2008 dated 12.06.2008, confirmed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.(SR)No.75291 of 2009 dated 07.10.2009, wherein the Division Bench held thus. "3... We have also noted that even on merits, the first appellant Director of School Education does not have any case. The respondent herein was employed as a Part-Time Sweeper in a Government Girls High School and her appointment was approved by the Inspector of Girls School, Kancheepuram, way back on 19.12.1999. The respondent had prayed for regularization of her services by filing the writ petition. The learned single Judge has noted that there is a government order in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.2.2006, which requires the Government Departments to regularize daily wage employees who have rendered ten years of service as on 1.1.2006. The respondent herein fully satisfied that requirement and had, therefore, prayed her regularization right from the initial date of her appointment. The learned single Judge has granted regularisation only after her completion of ten years of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 service, in tune with the above government order. This being so, in fact on merits, the first appellant- Director of School Education has no reason to have any grievance with the order passed by the learned single Judge, apart from the fact that he does not have any case." The said order was also implemented by the department. (iv) Common order in W.P(MD)No.9726 and 9727 of 2006 dated 24.06.2008, confirmed in W.A.(MD)No.151 and 225 of 2009,dated 23.06.2009. The special leave petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.02.2010. The said order was also implemented. (v) Order in W.P.No.20662 of 2010 dated 15.09.2010 implemented by the DEO, Perambalur on 04.11.2010. (vi) Order in W.P.No.23080 of 2008, dated 23.12.2008 confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 2414 of 2010, dated 26.11.2010. (vii) Order in W.P.(MD)Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2008, dated 4.12.2008, confirmed in W.A.(MD)Nos.69 & 70 of 2010, dated 20.1.2011. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the issue is covered by the decisions cited supra, petitioner is entitled to get her services regularised in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department, dated 28.2.2006. 8. In view of the said submissions, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on her completion of ten years of service with time scale of pay. The regularisation order is directed to be passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of pay, payable to the petitioner pursuant to the regularisation shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks therefrom. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ ARUL SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Secretary to Government,Department of Social Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat Building, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner & Director of Social Welfare, Department of Social Welfare,Chennai – 5. 3.The District Social Welfare Officer, Arabic College Street, Mannarpuram, Trichy. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 15835: DM:2011::MAY:17:: Order made in W.P.(MD)No.5059 of 2011 Dated:- 28.04.2011 4P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/