Disposed

Pandi Devi P v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Apr 2024WP(MD)/4354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clerks working in Madurai Kamaraj University since 2005 sought regularisation from 2015 after completing ten years as consolidated pay casual labourers, relying on a Division Bench order in a similar matter. The court directed the University to consider their representations positively within six weeks and disposed of the writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to consider petitioners' representations positively within six weeks; no order as to costs.

Pandi Devi P Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶7

P.Pandi Devi

¶8

... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.4354 of 2024

¶9

T.Prabhakaran

¶10

... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.4355 of 2024

¶11

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, High Education K2 Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶13

The Madurai Kamaraj University, Rep. by its Registrar, Madurai.

¶14

... Respondents in both the petitions

¶15

Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to regularize the petitioners' service as a Clerk in the 2^nd respondent University with effect from 2015 (completion of 10 years as Casual Labourer on Consolidated Pay) with all attendant benefits within the time that may be stipulated by this Court, in light of the order made by this Court in W.A.(MD)

¶16

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

¶17

1/7

¶18

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶19

No. 981 of 2023, dated 25.07.2023 within the time that may be stipulated by this Court

¶20

In both petitions:

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr. M.Mahaboob Athiff

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan (R1) Government Advocate

¶23

Mr.T.Cibi Chakkraborthi (R2) Standing Counsel

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction to

¶26

the 2^nd respondent to regularize the petitioners services' as Clerks in the 2^nd respondent University with effect from 2015, with all attendant benefits, in the light of the order made by this Court in W.A.(MD) No. 981 of 2023, dated 25.07.2023.

¶27

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are working as Clerks in the second respondent University from the year 2005. As per the resolution of Syndicate of the second respondent University, a policy decision was taken to regularise the services of those daily wagers, who had completed 10 years of service. Accordingly, the petitioners have also completed 10 years of service in the year 2015 and they are also

¶28

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

¶29

2/7

¶30

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶31

entitled to the above benefits. Similarly placed persons have already been given with benefits and their services have been regularised earlier.

¶32

3.In fact, similarly placed persons had approached this Court and obtained favourable orders in their favour and against which, the writ appeal preferred by the respondent University and that was also dismissed. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the relevant poritions in the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.981 of 2023, dated 25.07.2023:

¶33

“4.4. Ever since their recruitment as casual labour, they

¶34

have been continuously been made to discharge the duties assigned to the post of Clerk/Junior Assistant. The said fact could not be denied by the respondent University. The resolution passed by the respondent University reads thus:

¶35

“Item No.5: Considered the

¶36

a) the status of Consolidated Pay Casual Labourers;

¶37

b)the recommendation of the Syndicate dated 09.07.2005 to enhance the Consolidated Pay of the Conslidated Pay CLRs who have acquired an additional qualification such as PGDCA/B.Sc., (Computer Science) BCA etc.,

¶38

c)Casual Labour working on daily wages basis (Persons working previously in Scheme/Project)

¶39

d)Casual Labour working on daily wage basis as Data Entry Operators.

¶40

e)Computer Centre Lab Technicians.

¶41

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

¶42

3/7

¶43

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶44

Resolved that it be a recommendation to the Syndicate that the consolidated pay casual labourers and casual labourers on daily wages be allowed regular time scale of pay for those who have completed ten years of service as given below against to the existing vacant posts.

¶45

Clerical cadre : Rs.3625-85-4900 Class IV :Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200 Total no. of employees under clerical cadre Total no. of employees under Class IV

¶46

The remaining vacancies ie., 61 in the clerical cadre and 9 under class IV category shall be kept in abeyance.”

¶47

(emphasis supplied)

¶48

4.5. Thus a careful reading of the above resolution even though mentions about the number of employees and vacancies as on that date, it can be seen that generally it enhanced the consolidated pay on obtaining additional qualification and it considered the status of consolidated pay casual labourers and it resolved that the consolidated pay casual labourers and the casual labourers on daily wages be allowed on regular time scale of pay for those who have completed 10 years of service as given below against existing vacant posts in the Clerical cadre and Class IV posts in the scales of pay mentioned therein. On the basis of the resolution, persons similarly situate that of the petitioner have also been regularised. That is, one S. Rajeswari was regularised by order dated 03/01/2012 and one S. Paulraj & 5 others were regularised by order dated 03/10/2013. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions of the

¶49

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

¶50

4/7

¶51

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶52

learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Single Judge has not read the resolution in the correct perspective.

¶53

4.6. The petitioner has been kept under consolidated pay for nearly two decades and the dictum of Umadevi's case is not for the purpose of employing hands on regular basis continuously for years together and extracting work in the regular posts but on a meagre and consolidated pay. In that view of the matter, the respondent University has got no justification whatsoever in denying regularisation to the writ petitioner.”

¶54

4.Since the petitioners are also similarly placed persons, they are also entitled for the similar benefit. Hence, the second respondent is directed to consider the representations of the petitioners positively, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

5.Accordingly, these writ petitions stand disposed of. There shall

¶56

be no order as to costs.

¶57

04.04.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM

¶58

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

¶59

5/7

¶60

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶61

¶62

The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, High Education K2 Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶63

The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai.

¶64

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

¶65

6/7

¶66

W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶67

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶68

PNM

¶69

COMMON ORDER IN W.P.(MD).Nos.4354 & 4355 of 2024

¶70

04.04.2024

¶71

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

¶72

7/7

Pandi Devi P v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandi Devi P v. The State 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

Arunkumar B Vs The Director of Elementary Education

S.Pushpam Vs The District Chief Educational Officer

P.Mariselvi Vs The Regional Manager

R.Clement Raj Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

T.Padmavathy Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

C.Rajkumar Vs The Chief Educational Officer