AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan
By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. A. Karthik, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.
Bharathi, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petitioner has prayed for a direction directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as ''full time watchman'' on the date
of completion of ten years of ''part-time'' services. i.e. from 01.06.2002 and to disburse the benefits admissible to him.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as ''part-time watchman'' on 01.06.1992 at the Government High School, Mullipallam and
thereafter, he was appointed as full time employee as watchman in the same School with effect from 29.12.2006 in the time scale of pay. As per
the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, certain benefits can be given to
employees in respect of regularisatin, who were in contingent service, after completion of 10 years of service. Thereafter, the petitioner came to
understand that some of the contingent employees, like that of him, working in various districts filed Writ Petitions before this Court for seeking the
same relief of regularisation of service and this Court has granted certain directions. Pursuant to which, the Government passed a Government
order in G.O.Ms. No. 99, School Education (R1) Department, dated 08.06.2011 giving certain benefits. Taking the strength of the Government
order, the petitioner has represented to the second respondent on 14.11.2011 and the same is pending consideration and therefore, the petitioner
has come up for the relief stated supra.
The learned Government Advocate after going through the material documents annexed in the typed set of papers submits that the petitioner
was not a party to the earlier proceedings and the benefit of the Government order cannot be granted to him. However, she is not opposed to
consider the representation within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner would make a plea that he has made a representation to the second respondent on 14.11.2011 narrating the entire circumstances and if
that representation is directed to be considered in the light of the G.O.Ms. No. 99, School Education (R1) Department, dated 08.06.2011, then
his grievance would be redressed. In view of the above submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the second
respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.11.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.