1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.436 of 2011 The Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District. .. Appellant Vs 1.K.Velusamy 2.The Commissioner, The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8322 of 2008 dated 27.09.2010 under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuance of the 2nd responent's order in Na.Ka.No.5800/2000/C1 dated 01.03.2006 and quash the same as devoid of merits and directing the respondents to regularise the Petitioner Service from the date of Joining in service as sweeper on 1.10.99 within the period of stipulated (Prayer amended as per Order dated 13.10.2008 in MP.No.1/2008) For Appellant : Mr.V.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen for R1 Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate for R2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J.) The appellant preferred the writ appeal challenging the order of the writ Court dated 27.09.2010 in W.P.(MD)No.8322 of 2008 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, seeking for the relief of quashing the order passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the appellant herein dated 01.03.2006 not regularising the first respondent's service from 01.10.1999, i.e., the date of his initial appointment. 2.The case of the first respondent is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and after completing SSLC examination in the year 1989, he got enrolled in the Employment Exchange in 1989. Thereafter, the appellant, by Proceedings dated 01.10.1999, appointed the first respondent as Sanitary Worker through the seniority list maintained by the Employment Exchange. The said appointment was made in the vacancy caused by the retirement of one Paramasivam. From the date of his initial appointment, the first respondent is stated to have rendered unblemished record of service. Such being the position, the first respondent sought for the relief of regularising his service and the appellant passed the impugned order dated 01.03.2006 regularising his service only from 01.03.2006 instead of regularising his service from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 01.10.1999. Being aggrieved against the said order, the first respondent has preferred a writ petition and the writ Court allowed the said writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8322 of 2008 by order dated 27.09.2010. The said order is under challenge in this writ appeal. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the continuous service of the first respondent was taken into consideration and only thereafter, his service was regularised. It is contended that as per G.O.(Ms)No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department, dated 23.02.2006, the services of the first respondent has to be regularised from the date of issue of order subject to certain conditions and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the appellant herein. It is further contended that the writ Court has failed to consider the said Government Order and wrongly held that the services of the first respondent ought to have been regularised from the date of his initial appointment. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of the writ Court is liable to be set aside. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the writ Court has rightly considered the contentions put forward by the first respondent and held that the appellant herein ought to have regularised the services of the first respondent from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., from 01.10.1999. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent that in respect of other neighbouring Municipalities, viz. Tenkasi, Courtallam, Sankarankovil, Puliankudi, Tuticorin and also in Vadakarai Kilpidagai Town Panchayat, the services of similarly placed persons have been regularised only from the date of initial appointment. 5.Learned counsel for the first respondent would further contend that in a similar matter, a Division Bench of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Court, by order dated 02.03.2011 in Writ Appeal (MD)No.273 of 2011, has taken a similar view and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and the Commissioner of Kadayanallur Municipality against one S.Mariappan. 6.We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the appellant herein as well as the order passed by the writ Court. 7.The fact remains that the first respondent was appointed as Sanitary Inspector on 01.10.1999 as sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per his seniority, in respect of a vacancy caused due to the retirement of his predecessor one Paramasivam. It is seen that the first respondent sought for the relief of regularising his service from the date of his initial appointment, but the appellant passed the impugned order regularising the services of the first respondent only from the date of passing the impugned order, i.e., 01.03.2006, instead of regularising the services from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., from 01.10.1999. We are able to see that the writ Court has assigned valid reasons for allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, pointing out the procedure followed by the other neighbouring Municipalities. It is pertinent to note that the writ Court also pointed out that the appellant has not assigned any valid reason in his order dated 01.03.2006 to regularise the services of the first respondent from the date of his initial appointment. Apart from the said factor, it is to be seen that in respect of the very same Municipality, viz. Kadayanallur Municipality, in respect of the very same appellant herein, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 02.03.2011 in Writ Appeal (MD)No.273 of 2011 dismissing the writ appeal holding that the correct date of regularisation is only from the date of initial appointment in respect of similarly placed persons like that of the first respondent herein. Therefore, we are not able to see any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in the order passed by the writ Court dated 27.09.2010. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the writ Court in W.P. (MD)No.8322 of 2008 dated 27.09.2010, is confirmed and the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2001 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Commissioner, The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 +One cC to Mr.A.Hajamohideen, Advocate, SR.No.37422 +One CC to the Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.37454 KM rl/5 c- 15.11.2011 Writ Appeal (MD)No.436 of 2011 01.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/