@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashHeard both sides.
2. This writ petition arose out of O.A. No. 2769 of 1998 filed by the petitioners before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 34636 of 2006.
3. The petitioners sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to set aside the order of termination in Na.Ka. No. 4442-A/95, dated 8.11.1995 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicants with continuity of service and backwages.
4. The petitioners were stopped from work by the impugned order, dated 8.11.1995, since the post of live stock Inspectors under many sub centers were vacant, there is no scope for the employee in those sub centers. After sending a representation to the Department, they had filed the original application. The petitioners also stated that since they were working for more than 6 years, they should be given employment.
5. In response to their plea, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated dated 24.02.2006. In the reply affidavit, in paragraph 8, it was averred as follows:
8. It is also submitted that the Hon''ble Tribunal has passed final orders only for the casual labourers who were appointed on daily wages to regularize their services and based on the directions of the Hon''ble Tribunal. Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 116, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 7.5.97 (Copy enclosed), bringing the daily wages workers into regular establishment who have put in 10 years of service. It is submitted that the Hon''ble Tribunal has not passed any orders for the part time employees paid from contingencies, bringing them into regular establishment and the applicants are suppressing the facts that they are part-time employees paid from contingencies. It is submitted that the applicants are engaged in various sub-centers under the control of the Animal Husbandry Department to supply of one pot of water and sweeping work at Rs. 60/- P.M. as fixed in G.O.Ms. No. 971 Finance (Salaries-II) Department Dt:8.11.84. It has been clearly informed to them that their appointment is only for sweeping and supply of one pot of water to the Animal Husbandry Sub-Centers in the Villages. They are part-time employees and the services of the individuals are not required for more than 30 minutes in the forenoon everyday. Thereafter, they can do any work anywhere and the department is not insisting upon the above applicants, not to do any other work. It is also submitted that, if they do not attend the work of sweeping and supply of one pot of water to the Sub-Centers in the Villages, then they will not be paid wages for that day and hence their works are part-time nature and they are not at all full time employees. It is also submitted that there is no adhoc rules/special rules framed for the post of part time workers in the State. It is also submitted that as per Govt. Memo 36908/P & AR(FR.II)77-1 Department, dated 23.1.79, it has been clarified that part-time contingent staff are not eligible for regular appointment as per G.O.Ms. No. 52 Finance Department, dated 14.1.77. It is also submitted that the respondents are having 1799 Government Veterinary Sub-Centers in the Animal Husbandry Department.
6. It is also not clear as to why the petitioners chose to move the Tribunal after 3 years after the termination order was issued to them. Further, the petitioners being part-time employees engaged on adhoc basis cannot seek for direction either to restore their service or to give suitable regular employment on the basis of right to work being embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution.
7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits.
8.In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
