@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A. Arumughaswamy, J.@mdashThe petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Pro.Na.Ka. No. 447/98/A1 dated 6.2.2008 passed by the second respondent and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Basic Service personnel in any one of the regular vacancies on the Scale of pay and regularise his service from the date of first appointment and grant consequential benefits. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are:- The petitioner was working as Cholera Mazdoor in Government Primary Health Centre, Thalaignayiru, Thalaignayiru Panchayat Union since 1983 onwards and he has completed 15 years of service in the same capacity till 1998. Thereafter, he was terminated for want of vacancy by oral order of the 3rd respondent. In this regard, to regularise his service and to make him permanent, the petitioner has sent several representations to the 2nd respondent for which the 2nd respondent replied that they have sent a proposal to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and also to the Director of Rural Development, Chennai to absorb him as permanent employee in the existing vacancy. The said proposal was pending with the Directorate from 1996 onwards.
2. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 374/98 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and also obtained an interim order not to terminate him. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to the 2nd respondent and the same is still pending without passing any orders. In the meanwhile, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 52, Finance (F.R. II) Department, dated 14.1.77 and also G.O.Ms. No. 107 P and A.R. (Per F) Department dated 5.2.1987 giving instructions to all the departments to bring the contingent staff into regular establishment and also issued direction to complete that process on or before 31.3.1987. In spite of the same, the service of the petitioner was not regularised.
3. Thereafter, when the 2nd respondent attempted to fill up the vacancies from outsiders through Employment Exchange, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 5588/2001 seeking a direction to consider his case and to appoint him as Basic Service Personnel in any one of the vacancies based on the order passed by the Tribunal in a case in T.A. No. 729/93 dated 23.3.98 and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai vide order dated 30.08.2001 in O.A. No. 5588 of 2001 issued a direction to the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 26.5.2000 and post him in any one of the vacancies of basic servant or watchman arising in future, in view of the fact that he was served in this Panchayat Union since 1985 onwards was also issued as sought for by the petitioner. Even thereafter also, no order was passed by the 2nd respondent.
4. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 9809/2006 before this Court and this Court by order dated 7.4.2006 directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of the order of the Tribunal and in the event, there is no legal impediment in implementing the order of the Tribunal and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order or on production of the same by the petitioner. But without obeying the order of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. Hence, he filed Contempt Petition No. 156 of 2007 before this Court and after receiving the contempt notice, the 2nd respondent has given appointment to the petitioner so as to avoid contempt proceedings and therefore, the said petition was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner was continued in service till the impugned order dated 6.2.2008 by terminating him from service is passed. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. In the Counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent would state that since the post of Cholera Mazdoor has been abolished, they could not provide any employment to the petitioner as per the Government Orders issued in this respect. Further, though the petitioner has filed O.A. 374/98 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained an interim order and he has made several representations in this regard, the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent is pending with the Director of Rural Development. Therefore, they could not accommodate him and regularise his service and no committee has been constituted in this regard. Hence, according to the 2nd respondent, the present Writ Petition has to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
7. This court vide order dated 22.11.2013 directed Mr. M. Mohanraj, the then Commissioner and Mr. Gunasekaran, the then Block Development officer and the respondents herein to appear before this Court today. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the officials of the respondents appeared before this Court toady and they admitted that during the pendency of the Contempt Proceedings in Cont. P. No. 156 of 2007, the petitioner was given appointment as Gardener on daily wages vide proceedings of the second respondent dated 1.6.2007.
8. It is apparent on the face of the affidavit and counter affidavit placed before this Court that the petitioner was appointed as Cholera Mazdoor in Government Primary Health Centre during the year 1983 and he has put 15 years of service up to 1998. Thereafter, his service was terminated. Agitating the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 374/1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and thereafter citing the same and citing the relevant Government Orders, the petitioner has made several representations, but they have been ended in vain. That apart, when the respondents attempted to fill up the vacancies by outsiders through Employment Exchange, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 5588/2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. At that time ban order was in force. In spite of the ban order was in force the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 24.04.1998, has passed a positive order in favour of the petitioner. The operative portion of the said order runs as follows:-
5. In the circumstances, the application is allowed and the fifth respondent is directed to post the applicant in the next vacancy that arises in the category of Basic Servant or Watchman or any other post equivalent to Cholera Mazdoor.
9. Since the order of the Tribunal was also not obeyed by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 9809/2006 and by order dated 7.4.2006, this Court directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of the order of the Tribunal and in the event, there is no legal impediment in implementing the order of the Tribunal and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order or on production of the same by the petitioner. Even thereafter, since the respondents have disobeyed the order of this Court, as a third time, the writ petitioner has moved a Contempt Petition before this Court. On receipt of notice from the contempt proceedings, after knowing the fact that action will be taken against them in the contempt proceedings, in order to avoid the contempt proceedings, the respondents have cleverly appointed the petitioner as Gardener on daily wage basis by issuing the appointment order dated 1.6.2007. It was intimated before this Court that the petitioner was given appointment to the post as per the direction given in W.P. No. 9809 of 2006. The innocent writ petitioner also happily reported before this Court without knowing that he will sent out immediately after the closer of the contempt petition. After recording the said statement, this Court also innocently closed the contempt petition without anticipating the tactics going to play by P. Veerasamy, Block Development Officer, Thalaignayiru, who has once again, terminated the petitioner by way of issuing the impugned order.
10. In spite of the petitioner is not having any job even after producing the order of this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition to get his lawful right. This is a case in example to see as to how the public is victimised at the hands of the officials like the respondents.
11. All the above facts would go to show that the petitioner was driven from pillar to post in search of justice for his legal right since 1998. Therefore, I am of the view that mere allowing the Writ Petition is not sufficient to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the wrong information furnished before this Court to close the Contempt Petition.
12. It is for the respondents to proceed departmental enquiry against P. Veerasamy, Block Development Officer, Thalaignayiru, who has made wrong representation before this Court by issuing temporary appointment order dated 1.6.2007 appointing the petitioner as Gardener on daily wage basis for closure of Contempt Proceedings by playing tactics and who himself has terminated the petitioner by way of issuing the impugned order.
13. Since P. Veerasamy was working as Block Development Officer of Thalaignayiru Panchayat Union at the relevant point of time, the earlier order dated 22.11.2013 passed by this Court to stop payment of pension of Mr. Gunasekaran, the then Block Development Officer is hereby dropped and it need not be implemented.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is entitled for regular appointment with effect from 1.6.2007 on wards. Therefore, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in the permanent vacancy with effect from 1.6.2007 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and arrears of pay has to be paid to him within three weeks. Since the respondents have dragged on petitioner unnecessarily from pillar to post to redress his lawful right before the Tribunal as well as before this Court on three rounds, the respondents are liable to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
26.11.2013
28.11.2013
15. The matter is listed today under the caption "for being mentioned".
16. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first Respondent has produced a copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Thalaignayiru Panchayat Union dated 10.3.2011 regarding the payment of wages disbursed to the petitioner from June 2007 to February 2011 on daily wages basis aggregating to sum of Rs. 1,25,550/-. The learned Special Government Pleader has also produced a copy of the proceedings of the Distinct Collector, Nagapattinam dated 27.11.2013 in and by which, the District Collector has directed the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, in anticipation of the orders from the Government, to appoint the petitioner in a permanent vacancy with effect from 01.06.2007 and disburse him the pay and other allowances from the General Funds of the Panchayat Union. From this it is clear that the Respondents have taken steps to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, I am of the view the costs imposed by this Court in the order dated 26.11.2013 has to be removed and is accordingly removed. The order dated 26.11.2013 is modified to the extent indicated above.
