Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. K. Balamurugan

Madras HC9 Sept 2024WA(MD)/840/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a writ order quashing a government decision to outsource housekeeping and security services in Medical College Hospitals. Court upheld the lower court order, citing that posts fall under the Basic Service, making outsourcing illegal and employees entitled to regularization.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to regularise services of petitioners in accordance with Government Orders and bring them under time scale of pay.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K. Balamurugan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 09.09.2024

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶5

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022 and

¶6

CMP(MD)Nos.6986 and 8719 of 2022

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by it's Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶8

The Special Secretary cum Project Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Tamil Nadu Health System Project, Teynampet, Chennai-6.

¶9

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

The Government Rajaji Hospital, Represented by its Dean, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

vs.

¶13

K.Balamurugan

¶14

P.Arivagam

¶15

K.Sathis

¶16

P.Stalin

¶17

M.Nagarajan

¶18

R.Sagathevan

¶19

Muthumari

¶20

P.Balasubramani

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Page No.1 of 6

¶23

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022

¶24

S.Karthik 10. S.Ranjithkumar 11. P.Rajkumar 12. M.Palanivel 13. Ahamed Sabik 14. S.K.Pandian 15. Rabisa Begam 16. Gowri Muthukrishnan 17. S.Chitra 18. P.Arun 19. M.Pandi 20. K.Dhamatharan 21. K.P.Malarveli 22. K.Arumugam 23. M.Samaya Sanjivi 24. G.Gurusamy 25. B.Marimuthu 26. K.Velmurugan 27. S.Velmurugan 28. N.Senthilkumar 29. S.Boss 30. P.Kalaiappan 31. V.Vengaiyan 32. Chandra Sekaran 33. P.Thirupathi Mahalingam 34. M.Chinnasamy 35. S.A.M.Naina Mohammed 36. S.Abdulla Lathip 37. K.Krishnaveni 38. S.Ameer Bagam 39. M.Latha 40. M.Panchu 41. A.S.Arumugam 42. S.Nagajothi 43. V.M.Kumaran

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.18665 of 2013 dated 02.12.2016.

¶27

For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 6

¶28

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022

¶29

Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.SRA.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

¶30

For R1 to R11, 14 to 25, 27, 28,30 to 34,37 to 39, 41 & 42 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For R13, R36, R40 : No appearance

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

( Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶33

The appeal is against the order made in W.P(MD)No.18665 of 2013, quashing the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2013, in and by which, the Government decided to outsource housekeeping and security services in Medical College Hospitals. It was the contention of the petitioners before the Writ Court that they have been serving as Sanitary Workers in Government Hospitals for several years and if the Government is allowed to resort to outsourcing, they will be rendered jobless. The Writ Court quashed the Government Order.

¶34

We have heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.SRA.Ramachandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 11, 14 to 25, 27, 28, 30 to 34, 37 to 39, 41 & 42.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Page No.3 of 6

¶37

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022

¶38

Recently, the question as to whether the Government would be entitled to make temporary appointments was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in M.Sivappa vs. The State of Tamilnadu and four others [W.P.No.23823 of 2023, dated 26.02.2024] , to which, one of us (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) was a party. After considering the scope of G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, the Full Bench had held that if the appointment is made to any one of the 86 categories of posts enumerated in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, immaterial of the fact that whether the appointment is part time or full time, the employees would be entitled to regularisation. It is not in dispute that the post in which the writ petitioners are working is one of the posts found in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service and therefore, recruitment of temporary employees in such posts itself will be in violation of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Since the writ petitioners have been appointed to full time posts which are governed by the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, the authorities cannot resort to outsourcing of those posts with a view to ease out the writ petitioners. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal.

¶39

The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will

¶40

Page No.4 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022 be a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and bring them under time scale of pay at the earliest if they are found otherwise eligible by relaxing necessary rules. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.) 09.09.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala To

¶44

The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶45

The Special Secretary cum Project Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Tamil Nadu Health System Project, Teynampet, Chennai-6.

¶46

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶47

The Government Rajaji Hospital, Represented by its Dean, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Page No.5 of 6

¶50

W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶51

bala

¶52

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.840 of 2022 DATED : 09.09.2024

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 6

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. K. Balamurugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. K. Balamurugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Rahamuthullah Vs The District Collector

J.Abdul Ajees Vs The District Collector/Monitoring Committee

K.Varadharaj Vs The Commissioner

The Madurai Aruppukottai Nadar Uravinmurai Vs P.Seenivasan

Murugesan Vs The Secretary to Government

Selvakumar. a Vs The District Collector cum Monitoring Committee