AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners are the Part
time Sweepers in Education department. The date of joining in service of the petitioners are as follows:
SL.No.Name of the petitionersDate of Joining
N.A. Kumaravel 27.08.1994
V.E. Bharathi 29.08.1994
M. Victor 29.08.1994
V.P. Dhanasekaran 29.08.1994
G.K. Umadevi 27.08.1994
They were regularized in their service vide G.O. (3D) No. 145, School Education (R1) Dept., dated 22.11.2011. The regularization is ordered
from the date of G.O.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners should be regularized on completion of 10 years of service as per G.O. Ms. No. 22 (P&
AR) Dept., dated 28.2.2006.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 26.06.2012 in W.P.
No. 16110 of 2012. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
The learned Special Government Pleader after taking notice for the respondents submitted that similar orders may be passed in this writ petition.
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:
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.
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:
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....
Though in the letter dated 20.02.1995 it has been stated that the regularisation shall not apply 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 SLP 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 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 SLP 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) Common Order in WP Nos. 27488 to 27490, 27162, 27163, 26888, 26991 & 27309 of 2010 dated 02.10.2010 implemented through
G.O. Ms. No. 99, School Education Department, dated 08.06.2011 and G.O. Ms. No. 121, School Education Department dated 08.08.2011.
(viii) 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.
It is relevant to note that the order in W.P. No. 4859 of 2009 passed by T.S.S.J., was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No. 1520 of 2010 on 25.10.2010 and in SLP No. 8231/2011 dated 12.05.2011 and it was also implemented in G.O. Ms. No. 123
dated 17.08.2011. Pursuant to the same, this Court ordered regularisation from the date of appointment and the petitioner therein was granted
regularisation from 1990 with arrears of pay on full time basis.
On a perusal of the above referred orders, it is evident that persons similarly placed i.e., Part Time Sweepers employed in Government Schools
were granted regularisation of their services on completion of 10 years of service by relaxing the rule whenever required in terms of G.O. Ms. No.
22, P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006 and they were paid arrears of full time salary. The Government having passed such an order has to
apply the same to all similarly placed persons without any discrimination.
Applying the above said orders passed by this Court to the facts of the present case, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the
respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners based on the common representation dated 15.06.2012 after verifying their service
particulars as to completion of ten years of service with time scale of pay. The regularisation order is directed to be issued by the respondents
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of salary, payable to the petitioners, pursuant to their
regularisation, shall be paid to them within a period of four weeks therefrom. No costs.
In view of the said judgment, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned G.O. (3D) No. 145, School Education (R1) Dept., dated
22.11.2011, in so far as regularising the petitioners from the date of issuance of G.O. is quashed and direction is issued to the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners, on completion of 10 years of service. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
though petitioners have prayed for regularization from the date of initial appointment, they would be satisfied if the regularization is made on
completion of 10 years of service as per the order, dated 26.06.2012 in W.P. No. 16110 of 2012. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the
above terms and the direction is issued to regularize the service of the petitioners on completion of 10 years and to pay monetary benefits. The first
respondent is directed to complete the exercise within a period of 12 weeks. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.