R. Palani and Others vs Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development, Director of Rural Development and Block Development Officer Panchayat Union

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This petition is filed by the six Petitioners, who are Gang Mazdoors with Vellokoil Panchayat Union. They were initially

appointed as the Gang Mazdoors on 24-2-1975. However, on account of paucity of the funds, they were ousted from their services on

31.3.1976. Later on, they were reinstated on 6-9-1976. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vellakovil passed an order on 10.6.1991,

regularizing their service as till then the policy was to regularize the services of the Gang Mazdoors who had put in ten years of service. Treating

that they were reinstated on 6.9.1976 and treating that to be their date of initial entry, the Panchayat Commissioner regularised them with effect

from 8.9.1976. It is significant to note that the petition kept quiet over this because they could have easily said that they were appointed with effect

from 24-2-1975 and, therefore, they were bound to be regularized within ten years there from, that is, with effect from 24.2.1985 and not 8-9-

1976. However, probably because the Petitioner got the advantage of the regularization, they kept quiet. The matters did not stand here.

The State Government, thereafter, passed G.O.Ms. No. 136 dated 28-4-1997. This Government order makes a reference to five earlier

Government Orders, which are dated 16-8-1976, 17-10-1979, 17-6-1983 21.8.86 and 1-6-1990 as also to the two letters sent by the Director,

Rural Development, dated 8-9-1994 and 21.11.1996. It seems from this Government Order mentioned above, there was regularization of the

workers who had put in ten years of service. This was going on right from 16-8-1976 and it was made applicable for the first time to the workers

who had put in ten years of service as on 1.4.1979. In that Government Order, it was further provided that the regularization of 218 road workers

had remained and that the director, in his letters dated 8-9-1994 and 21.11.1996 had recommended the regularization of these 218 road workers.

It is suggested in the Government order that the letter mentions that 128 out of these 218 workers were appointed prior to the date of the ban

order, that is 16.8.1976 and 90 persons were appointed thereafter. The decisions of the Government is then in the following words:

The Government considered the recommendations of the Director well. It is ordered that the services of the 128 road workers who were

appointed prior to the date of ban order should be regularized from the date of completion of ten years of service and this should be brought to

scale from the date with Monetary benefits and the 90 road workers who were appointed after the date of the ban order should be regularized and

be brought to sale with effect from the date of this order (emphasis supplied) Along with this Government Order, there is a direct order passed by

the Director, Rural Development, dated 27-5-1997, bearing No. RC.25544/93 El. In this order, however, it is suggested in the table appended

there to that the Petitioners are treated to be the persons who were appointed with effect from 7-9-1976 meaning thereby, they were treated to be

the persons who were appointed after the ban order dated 15-8-1976 and as such they would be regularised only from 27.5.1997. It is this order,

which is being challenged by the Petitioner as the Petitioners now are apprehensive that in pursuance of their regularisation only with effect from

May, 1997 in terms of the impugned order, there would be recovery proceedings against them as, in fact, they were already regularised with effect

from 10.06.1993 by the order of one M.N. Venkatachalam, Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Vellakoil and were paid increased wages of

regularised employee.

The Learned Counsel Mr. R. Ganesan, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner firstly submits that it was a total misconception that the Petitioners

were shown to have been appointed from 7-9-1976. According to him, the words in G.O.Ms. No. 136 were in respect of the persons ""appointed

before the ban order"". According to him, since the initial appointment of the Petitioners was on 24.2.1975, they should have been treated to have

been appointed as such prior to the ban and that the Director has committed an error in treating them to be appointed after the ban order, i.e. after

16-8-1976. He points out further that rightly or wrongly the panchayat Commissioner had already passed an order of regularization in 1991 and

had awarded the regularization with effect from 1986 and since 1986 they were drawing the wages which were made applicable to them after their

regularization and now without any rhyme or reason or without affording any opportunity to them, the Director of Rural Development had quashed

the regularization order passed by the Panchayat Commissioner. The Learned Counsel points out that even the Panchayat Commissioner has not

been noticed or heard before this impugned order was passed.

Normally also, this Court would have certainly gone into the corrections or otherwise of the order passed. However, it is apparent that before

passing this order and treating the Petitioners'' date of appointment to be 6.9.1976 (as against their claim of 24.2.1975) and further directing that

they shall be regularized only with effect from 27.5.1997, the Petitioner had never been heard nor any opportunity given to them. In deed, had such

an opportunity been given to the Petitioners, the Petitioners could have pointed out that their initial appointment was prior to the ban order and as

such they were entitled to be regularized within ten years from their date of appointment. It is true that the Petitioners have kept quiet after the

regularization order was passed in their favour by the Panchayat/ Commissioner but that would not mean that the Government would be justified in

passing the subsequent order and deprive them of their regularisation which was already ordered in their favour by the Panchayat Commissioner.

Be that as it may, though the impugned order is being set aside, it is clarified that it will be for the Government to take the further action only after

hearing the Petitioners in this behalf or only after providing them an opportunity to explain against the impugned action. It will be, therefore, better if

the Government issues a show cause notice to the Petitioners if the Government ultimately chooses to pursue the action which it has already taken

by the impugned order. However, for the present, the impugned order will be treated to be set aside. The petition will have to be allowed to that

extent. In this behalf, it is also significant to note that the Government has not filed any counter explaining as to why it has chosen to take action

afresh in the year 1997 that too, when the Petitioners were already being paid the salary of the regularised employees with effect from 1986.