IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.08.2009 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.7463 OF 2007(T) O.A.No.744/02 V.Lingeeswaran ... Petitioner/Applicant Vs. 1. The Director of Public Libraries No.737, Anna Salai Chennai – 2. 2. The District Library Officer Sivaganga District Sivaganga ... Respondents/respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus by way of transfer of O.A.No.744 of 2002, to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Grade-III Librarian in the regular time scale of pay and to grant other consequential service benefits. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Loganathan For Respondents :Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya Additional Government Pleader (R1-R2) O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.744 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.7463 of 2007 before this Court. 2. Heard Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The petitioner was recruited as a Village Librarian on a Consolidated Pay of Rs.1,000/- per month by the second respondent by an order dated 21.08.1987. He was recruited through Employment Exchange. 4. The petitioner states that he has been in service for the past twelve years. However, he is still on consolidated pay, without being regularised in service. The petitioner filed O.A.No.744 of 2002 (W.P.No.7463 of 2007) for direction to the respondents to appoint him as a Grade-III Librarian in the regular time scale of pay, with all consequential benefits. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in consolidated pay, without being regularised, for the past twelve years. He submits that the respondents cannot keep an employee indefinetely in consolidated scale of pay, without regularising the services. The learned counsel submits that even in private employment, the workmen are regularised after completion of 480 days of service in two years, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of permanent status to workman) Act. The learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in keeping the workman in consolidated pay, without granting regular scale of pay, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government of India issued G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, regularising the services of all daily wages employees, who have rendered ten years of services as on 01.01.2006. In fact, the Government Order states that the Department Heads shall send proposal to Government, in cases, where some relaxation of rules is required for the purpose of regularisation. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation as per the said G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. 7. I have perused the appointment Order dated 21.08.1987. The petitioner was recruited through Employment Exchange on a Consolidated Pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. The petitioner also has averred that he is in possession of the requisite qualification for the post of Grade-III Librarian. Further, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 regularising the services of the daily wages employees. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are therefore well founded. It cannot be said that G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 is confined only to daily wages employees and not to persons on consolidated wages. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while the employment of daily https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wages employees depends on certain contingencies of employment, the service of petitioner is continuos. Further, the petitioner was recruited through Employment Exchange. Hence, the respondents cannot ignore the claim of the petitioner lightly. 8. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order claiming regularisation of his services and the second respondent is hereby directed to pass an order regularizing the services of petitioner, in the light of representation to be made be by the petitioner and also in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 9. The writ petition is disposed with the above directions. No costs. rns Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The Director of Public Libraries No.737, Anna Salai Chennai – 2. 2. The District Library Officer Sivaganga District Sivaganga + 1 cc to Government Pleader advocate SR.42320/09 W.P.NO.7463 OF 2007 RSI(CO) EU 17.09.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/