A writ appeal against the dismissal of a petition seeking reinstatement as a contracted driver. The Court held that since the employee worked under an outsourcing contract without statutory appointment rules, reinstatement is not entitlementable, though the equal pay claim remains open.
The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.04.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
T.Raj
... Appellant/
Petitioner
Vs.
_________Page 1 of 6
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 31.07.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No.14164 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Selva Vinayagam For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE, J. )
The appellant herein has moved this Court with a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 28.12.2012 terminating his services as a contracted driver for hospitals and also for certain ancillary reliefs. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide his order dated 31.07.2017, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant might not be entitled to claim reinstatement of his services, since he was only a contracted employee and that he has not been appointed by following the rules of appointment. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant has not challenged the order of termination either. This order is now under challenge in this writ appeal.
_________Page 2 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
2.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of termination indeed had been challenged, and submitted that the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in view of the authority of the Full Bench in M.Sivappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu [2024 (2) CTC 1]. In particular, the learned counsel placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, which directed regularisation of all temporary employees, who had completed ten years of service and also G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 27.06.2013 which restricted right of vis-a-vis some 86 categories of posts. He also submitted that the rule of “equal pay for equal work” as between the temporary workers/contracted workers and the pay scale for regular scale has been flouted.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the post of driver is not one among the 86 posts listed in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 27.06.2013 and at any rate, the appellant cannot seek reinstatement as he was not appointed as per rules providing for appointment.
4. After weighing the rival submissions, this Court accepts part of the submissions of both sides. Inasmuch as the appellant has worked as a driver
_________Page 3 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
in terms of a certain contract entered into by the authorities with an out sourced contractors, he may not be entitled to claim reinstatement of his post. So far as his claim for equal pay for the equal work done is concerned, that issue is left open, as it is not reflected adequately in the order under challenge. The appellant is therefore free to approach the authority seeking equal pay for equal work. As and when this application is made by the appellant, the authorities are required to consider the same and dispose of it strictly in accordance with law.
5. Subject to the observations herein above made, the Order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 15.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ABR
_________Page 4 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
To
Page 5 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.
ABR
W.A.(MD) No.464 of 2018
15.04.2024
_________Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing a complaint for reinstatement of a contracted driver.
Whether a contracted employee is entitled to reinstatement when appointed under an outsourcing contract rather than statutory rules of appointment.
Whether the issue of equal pay for equal work should be decided in this appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Sivappa Vs State of Tamil NaduReferred¶28
M.Sivappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu [2024 (2) CTC 1]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Raj
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department
The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine
The Deputy Director, Medical and Rural Health Services and Family Welfare
The Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Ukkirankottai
N. Seshasayee
P. Vadamalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
