GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R. AZHAHARASAN
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (AT: MADURAI)
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Instant review petition has been filed to review the order, dated 02.01.2019, in W.A.No.2796 of 2018, by which, we confirmed the order of the learned single Judge, dated 15.12.2017 made in W.P.No.22740 of 2010.
(2.) It is the case of the 2nd respondent that on 08.07.1997, he was appointed as a Jeep Driver on daily wage basis. But was not absorbed in the regular establishment in the regular time scale of pay, as per the existing rules. He preferred W.P.No.22209 of 2008, seeking regularisation as Jeep Driver. In the said writ petition, a learned single Judge directed to consider his representation for regularization in the regular post, as per Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, after getting representation from the respondent.
Accordingly, his representation was considered by the 2nd petitioner herein and rejected the claim, vide Proceedings No.52469/2008 S2, dated .03.2009 (Signed on 16.04.2009), on the ground that the respondent was not eligible for regularization of his temporary service, covered under daily wages. Further, it was stated that the respondent has not completed 10 years of service, as per G.O.Ms.No.22, P and A.R. Department, dated 01.01.2006.
(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed W.P.No.22740 of 2010 and a learned single Judge, vide order, dated 15.12.2017, directed the petitioners to regularize the services of the respondent, as driver, from the date of his initial appointment. Against which, W.A.No.2796 of 2018 was filed and we confirmed the order of the learned single Judge, passed in W.P.No.22740 of 2010, dated 15.12.2017, following the similar orders passed in W.P.Nos.19456 to 19458 of 2013, dated 04.09.2017. Seeking review, instant review petition has been filed, on the grounds inter alia that,
(a) The respondent has been given the benefit of the orders in W.P.Nos.19456 and 19458 of 2013, cited in the order copy of W.P.No.22740 of 2010, on completion of 10 years, wherein it is clearly stated to regularize his service as driver from the date of petitioner initial appointment.
(b) The above orders would lead to further litigations claiming regularization from the date of initial appointment which would cause great hardship and financial implications to the government.
(c) Further, on going through the order copy of W.P.No.22740 of 2010, it is clear that the respondent has claimed relief only based on WP.(MD)No.11106 of 2013. In this case, this Court had passed orders on 1.12.2016, as mentioned below:-
"the respondents ore hereby directed to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years service."?
(d) In a similar cases of W.P.Nos.19456 to 19458 of 2013, this Court had passed order as given below:-
"all the petitioners are directed to be regularized from the date of completion of ten years from the date of initial appointment with all attendant and consequential benefits."?
(e) The applicants reserve their right to raise additional grounds and when necessary if so advised."? ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.