Allowed

C.Manikandan, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC11 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3342/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition challenging the date of regularization of a sanitary worker's service. The court held that despite the order regularizing service later, the petitioner is entitled to regularization and enhanced benefits from the date he completed three years of initial appointment.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; respondents directed to regularize petitioner's service from the date of completion of three years of initial appointment.

C.Manikandan, Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :11.03.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3342 of 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶7

C.Manikandan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, St.George Fort,

¶10

Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer, Uthamapalayam Town Panchayath, Uthamapalayam and Taluk, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.305/2006/A1 dated 02.08.2006 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same in so far as the period of regularization from 06.03.2001 to 22.06.2006 and further directing the respondents to pay the enhanced salary and service benefits from 06.03.2001 to 22.06.2006 to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Balakrishnan

¶14

For Respondents:Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen

¶15

Addl.Govt. Pleader for R1. :Mr.V.Muruganandham, Addi.Govt.Pleader for R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.305/2006/A1 dated 02.08.2006 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same in so far as the period of regularization from 06.03.2001 to 22.06.2006 and further directing the respondents to pay the enhanced salary and service benefits from 06.03.2001 to 22.06.2006 to the petitioner.

¶18

2.The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary worker on 06.03.1998, pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 12.08.1997, initially for a period of three years with consolidated scale of pay. Thereafter, by the proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.305/2006/A1 dated 02.08.2006, they were brought into time scale of pay from 23.06.2006 and the same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶19

3.It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the G.O.Ms.No.199 and also as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 06.03.1998, by which he was appointed, on completion of three years, his service will be regularized after getting the permission from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government and his service was regularized only from 23.06.2006, and therefore the order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside and

¶20

¶21

the petitioner ought to have been regularized from the date on which he completed three years of service as per the judgment rendered in W.P.No.113 of 2009 dated 07.09.2009 in the matter of D.Venkatesan -vs- The Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai-108 and two others and W.P.No.6369 of 2007 dated 21.09.2011 in the matter of Adhikesavan and another -vs- The Executive Officer, Mamallapuram Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District and others and W.P.No.9586 of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 in the matter of M.Anandan and others -vs- The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai and two others .

¶22

4.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per the appointment order, on completion of three years, service will be considered for making them as permanent and the same was considered by this Court in various judgments referred above and they were made permanent on completion of three years of service. He further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to them as they did not raise any objection when they were made permanent from the year 2006 by the reason of impugned order and after seeing others getting some orders, this writ petition is filed by belatedly and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

¶23

5.Though the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 02.08.2006, by which they were regularized into service from 23.06.2006 and not from the date of completion of three years of service, considering the judgments of this Court referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to be made permanent from the date of completion of three years of service from the initial appointment and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to get the same relief. Hence, in the light of the judgments referred to above, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the second respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of three years of service of completion of service. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

Assistant Registrar