Disposed

T.Padmavathy v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC4 Apr 2024WP(MD)/4935/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two University Clerks sought regularisation of their daily-wage services from 2005 with monetary benefits, relying on earlier favourable orders to similarly placed employees upheld by a Division Bench. The Court directed the University to consider their representations positively within six weeks and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider petitioners' representations positively within six weeks from receipt of copy of order.

T.Padmavathy Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 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.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶7

T.Padmavathy

¶8

... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.4935 of 2024

¶9

M.Mari Ammal

¶10

... Petitioner in WP(MD) No.4936 of 2024

¶11

¶12

The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶13

The Vice Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai.

¶14

The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai.

¶15

... Respondents in both the petitions

¶16

Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to regularize the petitioners' service from 14.11.2005 with all monetary benefits in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 12554 of 2022, dated 01.12.2022 and in W.P.

¶17

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

¶18

1/7

¶19

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶20

(MD).No. 18974 of 2022 on 04.01.2024 based on the petitioners' representations, dated 07.02.2024 within the time period stipulated by this Court.

¶21

In both petitions:

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. S.Vanchinathan

¶23

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

¶24

Mr.T.Cibi Chakkraborthi (R2) Standing Counsel

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to regularize the petitioners services' from 14.11.2005 with all monetary benefits in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).No. 12554 of 2022, dated 01.12.2022 and in W.P. (MD).No. 18974 of 2022, dated 04.01.2024.

¶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

¶28

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

¶29

2/7

¶30

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶31

have also completed 10 years of service in the year 2015 and they are also 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

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

¶41

3/7

¶42

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶43

e)Computer Centre Lab Technicians.

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

¶46

(emphasis supplied) 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

¶47

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

¶48

4/7

¶49

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶50

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

¶51

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.”

¶52

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 petitioner positively, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

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

¶54

be no order as to costs.

¶55

04.04.2024

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

5/7

¶59

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

6/7

¶65

W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶66

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶67

PNM

¶68

COMMON ORDER IN W.P.(MD).Nos.4935 & 4936 of 2024

¶69

04.04.2024

¶70

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

¶71

7/7

T.Padmavathy v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Padmavathy v. The Principal 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

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

Pandi Devi P Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Rajkumar Vs The Chief Educational Officer