Disposed

Mr. v.Muthiah, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Aug 2014WP/21030/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a watchman seeking regularization of service from his initial appointment date. The Court relied on its own previous judgment (W.P.No.11490 of 2007) and an existing Government Order, directing the first respondent to consider a fresh representation for regularization from the date the petitioner was promoted to Office Assistant (29.12.1984

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh representation enclosing this order; First respondent to pass orders on the representation considering the petitioner's time scale of pay from 29.12.1984.

Mr. v.Muthiah, Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.NO.21030 OF 2012

¶6

V.Muthiah ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus
1. The Secretary to Government
Agricultural (Vee.Ni.4) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chief Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture
Sivagangai.
4. The Executive Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
Collectorate Complex,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
No.3, Subaramaniapuram 9 th Street,
North Karaikudi – 3.
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to pass order on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2011 and the subsequent reminder on 20.07.2012 seeking regularisation of the service of the petitioner from date of initial appointment instead of the date of G.O.Ms.No.399, Agriculture (Ve.ni.4) Department, dated 22.12.2006 in the entry level post of Watchman within short date that may be fixed by this Court with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.G.Sridevi

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard both sides.

¶14

2.The petitioner was originally appointed as Watchman on daily wages basis through District Employment Exchange, Ramanathapuram (earlier Madurai). It is not in dispute that at the time of his initial appointment, he was on daily wages basis. The Director of Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Sathur, Virudhunagar District appointed the petitioner as Watchman on temporary daily wages basis by an order dated 13.03.1982 pursuant to the sponsorship by the District Employment Exchange. He joined duty on 17.03.1982. He was on daily wages basis upto 28.12.1984. The same is not in dispute as seen from para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶15

3.Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Office Assistant at the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (AE), Aruppukkottai in the regular vacancy in the scale of pay of Rs.250-5-330-10-400. He joined duty on 29.12.1984 in the said post. He was given time scale of pay from 29.12.1984 as found in para 5 of the counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was granted the scale of pay of Rs.450-10-570-15-720 /- based on G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 10.10.1986. That is, the petitioner was granted scale of pay from 29.12.1984 onwards and the same was subsequently revised based on G.O.Ms.No.528.

¶16

4.But the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.399, Agriculture (Ve Ni.4) Department, dated 22.12.2006 regularising the services of 14 Watchmen including the petitioner on different dates on completion of five years of service. As per the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner was regularised in service from 11.11.1988. That is, he was given time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.399 with effect from 11.11.1988.

¶17

5.In those circumstances, the petitioner made representations dated 28.02.2011 and 20.07.2012 to the first respondent seeking to regularise the service from the date of appointment and thereby giving time scale of pay from the date of appointment.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

6.However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though a request was made in the representations seeking time scale of pay from the date of appointment, the petitioner is entitled to time scale of pay from 29.12.1984. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of this Court dated 09.02.2010 in W.P.No.11490 of 2007 wherein it has been held that in cases where employees were granted time scale of pay at an earlier point of time, later, the Government cannot issue another order to the prejudice of the employee granting time scale of pay at a subsequent date by regularising the service from the subsequent date. It is also stated that the aforesaid order of this Court was implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.135, Agriculture Department, dated 09.07.2014.

¶20

7.In my view, the aforesaid judgment of this Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the petitioner was admittedly given time scale of pay from 29.12.1984 as stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit.

¶21

8.In these circumstances, taking into account the narrow prayer made in the writ petition, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent enclosing a copy of this order along with his earlier representation dated 20.07.2012, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent is directed to pass orders on the petitioner's representation taking into account the fact that the petitioner was given time scale of pay from 29.12.1984 and also the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.11490 of 2007 dated 09.02.2010 and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.135, Agriculture Department, dated 09.07.2014 within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

¶22

9.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar Dated: 07.08.2014 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

¶28

The Secretary to Government
Agricultural (Vee.Ni.4) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Chief Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture
Sivagangai.
4. The Executive Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
Collectorate Complex, Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Agricultural Engineering
No.3, Subaramaniapuram 9 th Street,
North Karaikudi – 3. Sivagangai District.
1 CC to Mrs.G.Sridevi, Advocate SR.No. 34866
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No 35141
W.P.NO.21030 OF 2012
EV (CO)
PSI (07.08.2014)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr. v.Muthiah, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. v.Muthiah, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Thangavel Vs the Registrar of Cooperative

Hll Tea Workers Welfare Vs the Presiding Officer

R.Janarthanan, Vs the District Forest Officer

V.Krishnakumar Vs Gagan

A.Valarmathi Vs Vibhu Nayar IAS

R.Sundari Vs the Director