A BABYSABEENA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the four writ petitions, the petitioners have come forward to challenge G.O.Ms.No.334 Public Works(C2) Department dated 19.10.2007 and seeks to challenge Para.3(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.334 Public Works Department dated 19.10.2007. IN the said G.O. The State Government framed a scheme for absorption of 1506 Nominal Muster Roll employees to adjust them against the vacancies available in the particular category and also accommodate them in those categories. IN the said order, it was stated that Nominal Muster Roll employees of both coming under the Civil and Electrical who have completed 10 years of service, will be brought under regular establishment and their services will be regularised. IN the said G.O., the names of employees, their date of birth, their community date of appointment, date of completion of ten years, their educational qualifications and also the relevant recruitment rules which are to be relaxed their favour for the purpose of bringing them under regular establishment.

(2.) THE State Government in the very same G.O. also cancelled the earlier annexures I & II which were appended to the G.O.Ms.No.321 Public Works Department dated 28.09.2007 and the present G.O. comprised of 1056 Nominal Muster Roll employees. In Paragraph 5 of the said order, it was stated that the Chief Engineer(General) Public Works Department and the Regional Chief Engineers concerned are responsible to the facts and figures given in their proposals in respect of regularization and in the said G.O. Impugned, Annexures I to XIV contained the names of employees including the petitioners herein. THE State Government in the penultimate paragraph, had stated that for the purpose of regularization, it is established that there will be an expenditure of Rs.4,44,52,887/- in this regard and necessary proposal will have to be sent to the financial department.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners as set out in the affidavit is that confining the monetary benefits from the date of G.O. is without basis and suffers from want of application of mind. Once the Government chooses to invoke the power of relaxation under Rule 48 of the General Rules contained in Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, then the regularization so made should not be detrimental to the individual and regularization given long back to the date of regularisation. It should be reckoned to the date on which they have completed 10 years and the failure to do the request made by the petitioner will result in grave injustice. It is also stated that the petitioner have worked and toiled as casual labourer and have long service, G.O. came to be issued and once the qualifying service of 10 years has taken for regularisation, then the benefit should go before the date of completion for 10 years and not the artificial date of taking note of the date of G,.O.