N. Irubakaran, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in tune with the letter forwarded by the fifth respondent, dated 28.05.2015 with regard to the regularization of petitioner's service for the period from 28.08.1981 to 02.05.1989.
(2.) The facts of the case are as follows; The respondent is the writ petitioner, who was selected as Fitter and posted at Devakotai, through Employment Exchange on NMR basis and he was brought into time scale with effect from 28.08.1981. When the petitioner was qualified for the post of Driver, he was promoted and transferred to Nagercoil as Driver. He joined service on 03.05.1989. Thereafter, again the petitioner was re-transferred to Thirupathur in the year 1995 and reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013 and all the pension benefits and other terminal benefits have been given to him, except for the period from 28.08.1981 to 02.05.1989. Therefore, the original writ petitioner has approached the appellants for regularizing the period from 28.08.1981 to 02.05.1989 for the purpose of service benefits. Though the Department issued a Board Proceedings in B.P.No.36 dated 05.02.1990 regularizing the services of 300 similarly placed persons like the respondent, the name of the respondent was not included in the Board proceedings. In this regard, the respondent/writ petitioner made a representation to regularize the said period. The Superintendent Engineer, TWAD Board, Sivagangai, the 4th appellant herein sent a proposal to the 3rd appellant to regularize the petitioner's service period from 01.09.1981 to 11.05.1989, so as to enable the respondent/writ petitioner to get pension benefits and other attendant benefits. The 3rd appellant forwarded the said proposal to the 1st appellant on 03.03.2014. However, the same was returned on 29.10.2014 for some clarifications. Again, the 5th appellant sent a proposal on 10.11.2014, which was forwarded to the Department on 20.11.2014. Even after returning the proposals for two times along with the relevant details, again the proposal was forwarded to the Joint Chief Engineer, TWAD Board. In the mean while, the petitioner reached the age of Superannuation on 28.02.2015. Since, no action has been taken with regard to the inclusion of the aforesaid period in service, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the proposal sent by the 4th appellant through 3rd appellant to the 1st appellant was pending, a direction has been given to consider the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner in tune with the letter forwarded by the 5th appellant dated 28.05.2015, giving the benefits, given to the similarly placed persons. The said order is being challenged before this Court.;