AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vasantha kumar, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is to grantregularisation to the Petitioners from earlier date, i.e.,after the completion of five years of service by thePetitioners.
The case of the Petitioners is that, thePetitioners were appointed on contingency basis asWatchmen. The services of the Petitioners were regularisedby the first Respondent along with 47 similarly situatedcontingency staff by G.O. Ms. No. 204, (AAIV) Department dated18.03.1991.
According to the Petitioners, 11 out of 51 personsapproached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal byfiling O.A. No. 2677 of 1991 and prayed for a direction tothe Respondents to modify the order dated 18.03.1991 andregularise their service with effect from the date of theirinitial appointment by relying on G.O. Ms. No. 52, FinanceDepartment dated 14.01.1977, as per which, on completion of five years of service, their services are bound to beregularised. The Tribunal by order dated 22.11.1993,directed the Respondents herein to regularise the servicesof the said 11 persons on their completion of five years ofcontingent service instead from the date of G.O. Ms. No. 204(AAIV) dated 18.03.1991, with all consequential benefits. Since, the said order was implemented by the Respondentsinsofar as the said 11 persons are concerned, the similarlyplaced four watchmen submitted a representation seeking thesame benefit, i.e., prayed for regularisation on theircompletion of five years of contingent service as that ofthe 11 persons, who filed the original application andgot orders. The said request was rejected on the groundthat the said direction issued by the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal is applicable only to thePetitioners in that original application and the similarlyplaced watchmen cannot be given the said benefit.
The said order of rejection is challenged beforethis Court in the writ petition in W.P. No. 29501 of 2004 bythe Petitioners therein, and the said writ petition wasallowed on the ground that, they are also similarly placedlike the other 11 persons and the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal has passed an order, which was also implemented by the Respondents. The Respondents cannot discriminate thePetitioners therein when facts of their case as well as thecase of the said applicants are one and the same.
The learned Counsel also submitted that in the decision reported in 2006 Writ Law Reported 327 (N.S. Balasubramanian and 18 others v. Food Corporation of India rep. by the Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi and two others) this Court has taken a similar decision following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 13 to 16 and the said judgment reads as follows:
Here in this case, the claim of thePetitioners are that they are entitled to be treatedlike similarly placed persons, who are thePetitioners before the Kerala High Court and who arepaid the recovered amount. In effect, thecontention of the Petitioners is that they shall betreated equally and if any discrimination is made onthe ground that Petitioners 1 to 16 have receivedVoluntary Retirement Scheme benefits and thereforethey are not entitled to get the recovered amount,the same will be violative of Article 14 of theConstitution of India.
Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiaclearly prohibits discrimination and if any discrimination without any intelligible differentia,certainly violation will be hit by Article 14 of theConstitution of India, which is a guaranteedfundamental right available to any person. The saidright being the fundamental to treat equally amongequals, cannot be negatived on the plea of waiver orestoppel as rightly held by the Honourable SupremeCourt and this Court.
In the light of the above submissions andjudgments, there is no substance in the arguments ofthe learned Additional Advocate General appearingfor the Respondents that Petitioners 1 to 16 are notentitled to maintain the writ petition afteraccepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
16.(a) The learned Senior counsel for thePetitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Courtreported in K.C. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others, it is held as under,
Having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, we are of theview that this was a fit case in which theTribunal should have condoned the delay inthe filing of the application and theAppellants should have been given reliefin the same terms as was granted by theFull Bench of the Tribunal. The appealis, therefore, allowed, the impugnedjudgment of the Tribunal is set aside, thedelay in filing of O.A. No. 774 of 1994 iscondoned and the said application isallowed. The Appellant would be entitledto the same relief in the matter of pension as has been granted by the FullBench of the Tribunal in its judgmentdated December 16, 1993 in O.A. Nos. 395-403of 1993 and connected matters. No orderas to costs.
(b) In another decision cited by the learnedSenior Counsel for the Petitioner reported in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. N. Parameshwarappa and Others, the Supreme Court held as under,
...we do not find any reasonablejustification to confine the relief toonly such of the teachers who approachedthe court and having regard to the factthat relief related to the revision ofscales of pay, every one of that class ofteachers who approached would be entitledto the benefit, notwithstanding that theyhave not approached the Court. We are inequal agreement with the Division Bench indenying the payment of interest atcompounded rates which, in our view,cannot be justified at all on the factsand circumstances of the case wherein aserious and genuine doubt existed aboutthe applicability of the government orderdated 30.3.1990, as raised in theproceedings.
For all the reasons statedabove, the appeals filed both by the Stateas well as by the private Respondent teachers fail and shall stand dismissed. Our declaration to extend the benefits ofthe judgments to others who have notapproached the Court, but similarly placedis to do complete and substantial justice. No costs.
(c) In yet another decision reported in 1999 SCC 788 (Govind Ram Purohit and Anr. v. Jagjiwan Chandra and others), in para 3 theHonourable Supreme Court held thus,
It was lastly contended by thelearned Counsel for the Appellants thatwhereas the petition had been filed byonly Respondent 1, the High Court whilefinally concluding the matter has given adirection to promote all those who weresenior to the Appellants even though theywere not parties to the petition. Oncethe High Court had placed a particularinterpretation on the Rules, the benefitof that interpretation had to go to allthose who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. There was no point inwaiting for each and every person to filea petition. Therefore, we do not see anyreason why we should entertain such a echnical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned.
From the analysis of the judgments cited above, itis beyond doubt and clear that once the point isdecided in favour of a group of persons, there is nofurther point in waiting for each and every personto file petition and pray for the same relief. Asheld by the Honourable Supreme Court, the benefit ofthe judgment is equally applicable to similarlyplaced persons to do complete and substantialjustice.
The said judgment was challenged in W.A. No. 956 of 2006 andthe First Bench of this Court confirmed the same by orderdated 30.10.2006 and the SLP (Civil) No. 6771 of 2007 filedagainst the said judgment was also dismissed by the Hon''bleSupreme Court on 23.04.2007.
Mr.A. Arumugam, the learned Special GovernmentPleader takes notice and submitted that if the Petitionersare similarly placed like the 11 persons, who filedoriginal application, the Respondents are bound to considerthe Petitioners'' claim.
In view of the said legal position and if there isno factual difference between these Petitioners and other11 persons, who have been given the benefit ofregularisation on completion of five years of their initialservice, the Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners based on the representation given bythe Petitioners dated 2.8.2010. The Respondents also bearin mind the order passed in W.P. No. 29501 of 2004 dated12.11.2008 granted in favour of four others which was alsoimplemented by them while passing orders.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of witha direction to the Respondents to extend the same benefitsof regularisation given to the 11 persons who filed theOriginal Application No. 2677 of 1991 to the Petitionersalso, if the Petitioners are similarly placed. Necessaryorder is directed to be passed within six weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.