Allowed

P.Banu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Jun 2024WP/38640/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Sweeper-cum-Sanitary worker sought regularisation of service from 1999 with attendant benefits. Relying on a Division Bench judgment in Director of Town Panchayat v. R.Sundaradas and G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 12.08.1997, the court held her date of joining was 01.11.2010, entitling her to time scale from 02.11.2013.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to regularise petitioner's service from 02.11.2013 with all consequential service and monetary benefits, to be completed within eight weeks; no costs.

P.Banu Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶7

P.Banu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶10

Rep.by the Secretary,

¶11

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam Buildings, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.

¶13

3.The Executive Officer, Jalakandapuram Town Panchayat (Municipality), Salem District. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,directing the respondents to regularise petitioner's service from the year 1999, date of completion of petitioner's 3 years service and to pay a consolidated pay with all attendant and consequential benefits with arrears.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶18

For Petitioner : Mrs.T.K.S.Bharathy Anandraj

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan, ( 1 & 2 ) Addl.Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.C.Sangamithirai Special Government Pleader

¶20

For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner who has been working as Sweeper-cum-Sanitary

¶23

worker in Jalagandapuram Town Panchayat, Salem District, has filed this writ petition to order the respondents to regularise her services from the year 1999 and to pay all the consequential benefits.

¶24

The petitioner submits that she joined as Sweeper-cum-Sanitary worker in Jalagandapuram Town Panchayat, Salem District in the year 1999. She has been regularly working under the 3^rd respondent and her service is yet to be regularised even after several oral representations. After 2012, all Sweepers, Sanitary Workers are made to join in Manoranjitham Magalir Manram and monthly payment was paid by the 3^rd respondent totally by way of demand draft.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶29

Additional Advocate General, assisted by the learned Special Govt.Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Special Govt.Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

Based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

¶31

Court in W.A.No.1454 of 2007, dated 19.12.2008, in the case of Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai and two others v. R.Sundaradas, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions and held that the writ petitioners are entitled to time scale of pay only from the date when they completed 3 years of consolidated pay and not from any subsequent date.

¶32

I have perused the judgment dated 19.12.2008, rendered by the

¶33

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeal mentioned supra.

¶34

The copy of the Nominal Muster Roll pertaining to June 2002 filed is not authenticated one. The Certificate issued by the Executive Officer of Jalakandapuram Town Panchayat dated 21.11.2011 reads that she was engaged as a Sweeper on consolidated pay basis. Even the copy of resolution of Manoranjitham Magalir Manram for the month of December

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶38

2010 is filed, wherein, the petitioner was paid Rs.1,500/- p.m., on consolidated pay basis.

¶39

From available records it is deducible that as on 01.11.2010, the petitioner has been working on consolidated pay basis and therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 12.08.1997, the service of the consolidated pay Sweepers has to be brought under regular time scale of pay from the date on which she completed 3 years of service. The petitioner has stated that she made oral representations in this regard. Her date of joining in service is taken as 01.11.2010.

¶40

As mentioned supra, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the employee and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1454 of 2007 dated 19.12.2008, in the case of Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai and two others v. R.Sundaradas. In my considered view, as held by the learned Single Judge and as confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, I have no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner is entitled to be brought under the time scale of pay on the date on which she completed three years of service on consolidated

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶44

pay as per G.O.Ms.No.199 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.2), Department , dated 12.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.84 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.05.1998. Three years period gets completed on 01.11.2013. From 02.11.2013, she has to be brought under regular time scale of pay.

¶45

Based on the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition stands

¶46

allowed with a direction to regularise her services from 02.11.2013 with all consequential service and monetary benefits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.

¶47

03.06.2024

¶48

ssn

¶49

Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking order

¶50

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶52

R.KALAIMATHI, J .,

¶53

ssn

¶54

¶55

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶56

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam Buildings, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.

¶57

3.The Executive Officer, Jalakandapuram Town Panchayat (Municipality), Salem District.

¶58

W.P.No.38640 of 2016

¶59

03.06.2024

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

P.Banu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Banu v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

M.Udayasooriyan Vs The Additional Director

Thiraviyam Vs The Principal Secretary

N.Vadivel Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

S.Kokilaani Vs the District Collector

K.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Chairman

S.Chakkaravarthy, Vs The Deputy Inspector General