Decided on April 25,2019

J.Manikandan Appellant


- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 18.11.2014, rejecting their request for regularization of their service as Road Roller Drivers.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
(3.) These petitioners were appointed as Road Roller Drivers in 2003, 2006 and 2008 at various Panchayat Union. After continuously working for several years, they sought for regularization of their service based on Government Order passed by the first respondent-Government in G.O.No.126 Rural Welfare (E5) Department dated 16.04.1997. As their request was not considered, they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.20230 of 2012 and sought for Mandamus, directing the respondents therein to regularize their service with effect from the date of their initial appointment. This Court after hearing both sides, dispose the said writ petition on 13.12.2013 by passing the following order: The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Road Rollers Drivers with effect from the date of their initial appointment with all monetary and service benefits. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are all fully qualified drivers of road rollers and they were working as Road Roller Drivers for several years. They are possessing valid certificates for driving in road roller after underwenting and completing the course on Road Roller operation and Maintenance. Thus, they are fully eligible to be appointed as permanent Road Roller Drivers. However, they are working as Road Roller Drivers on daily wages. Since they are working for a many number of years only on daily wages, they made a representation to the authorities seeking for regularization of their services. The Government also passed G.O.Ms.No.126, Rural Welfare (E5) Department, dated 16.04.1997 according permission to appoint the persons like petitioners permanently. Thus, the petitioners are also entitled to the same benefit given under the said Government Order. They made a representation last of which on 26.12.2011. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the relief sought for in this writ petition viz., regularization of the services of the petitioners is under the consideration of the first respondent in pursuant to the Government Order passed already. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submits that only after a decision is taken by the first respondent, the petitioners will be given the benefit of regularization. 4. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side. 5. The petitioners herein seek for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize their services as Road Roller Drivers. It is the case of the petitioners that their request for regularization is supported by Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.126, Rural Welfare (E5) Department, dated 16.04.1997. The learned Government Advocate is also not disputing their eligibility and on the other hand, he submits that the said request is pending before the first respondent. Therefore, I consider that instead of passing order in this writ petition, the first respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders without any further delay. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners as Road Roller Drivers and pass appropriate orders in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.126, Rural Welfare (E5) Department, dated 16.04.1997, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.