AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as a Go down Watchman on 20.07.1993 in Watrap Panchayat Union. He has been
continuously working as Go down Watchman on daily wage basis from 1993. He made a representation to the 4th Respondent on 17.03.2006,
requesting to regularize his services based on G.O. Ms. No. 22, P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 as he has rendered more than 13 years
of service. According to him, he does possess the educational qualification for the post of Go down Watchman. The 4th Respondent, through his
proceedings, dated 20.03.2006, recommended for regularization and requested the 3rd Respondent to take proper steps for regularizing the
service of the Petitioner. Based on the aforesaid proceedings of the 4th Respondent, the 3rd Respondent sent a proposal dated 13.04.2006 to the
2nd Respondent for regularization of the service of the Petitioner. While so, the Petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 2033 of 2006 seeking direction to
appoint him in time scale as Go down Watchman based on G.O. Ms. No. 22, P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 10.03.2008, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the request of the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Based on the aforesaid order, the impugned order dated 18.09.2008 was passed by the 2nd Respondent, refusing to regularize the service of
the Petitioner stating that G.O. Ms. No. 22, P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 is not applicable to the employees under the Panchayat
Union and it applies only to the Government Employees. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated
18.09.2008 and for consequential direction to appoint him in the time scale of pay for Go down Watchman or any other post.
The 3rd Respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that G.O. Ms. No. 22, P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 is
not applicable to daily wage employees of Panchayat Union. However, the names of daily wage employees working in Panchayat Unions are
called for from all the District Collectors vide letter dated 20.11.2008 of the 2nd Respondent and a consolidated proposal including the name of
the Petitioner to regularize the service of the daily wage employees working in Panchayat Union, who had rendered 10 years of service as on
01.01.2006 was sent to Government on 18.03.2009.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
The following passage is extracted from the paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent.
Further the names of daily wages employees who were no working in Panchayat Unions are called for from all the District Collector vide C.R.D.
Lr. No. 54133/08/E4 dated 20.11.2008. A consolidated proposal including the name of the Petitioner to regularizing the services of the daily
wages employees working in Panchayat Union who had rendered 10 years of services as on 01.01.2006 was sent to Government on 18.03.2009.
After receipt of the Government Order, further action will be taken. There was no ulterior motive or any other mollified and intention against the
Petitioner.
In the aforesaid passage, it is stated that a consolidated proposal is sent to the 1st Respondent on 18.03.2009 seeking appropriate orders from
the 1st Respondent for regularizing the service of the daily wage employees working in Panchayat Unions, who had rendered 10 years of service
as on 01.01.2006. It is stated that the name of the Petitioner was found in the aforesaid proposal.
Though G.O. Ms. No. 22, P & AR, Department, dated 28.02.2006 is not applicable to the daily wage employees under the Panchayat Unions,
the principle could be applied and the Government is expected to extend the same benefit to employees under the Panchayat Unions also.
Otherwise, the action of the Respondent, keeping employees on daily wages continuously for 17 years, is highly arbitrary and volatile of Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In these circumstances, taking into account the aforesaid statement made by the 3rd Respondent in the counter affidavit, the impugned order of
the 2nd Respondent dated 18.09.2008 is quashed and a direction is issued to the 1st Respondent to pass appropriate order, regularizing the
service of the Petitioner based on the proposals that was sent to 1st Respondent on 18.03.2009 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.