M.Sasikumar v. The Secretary to Government,

O R D E R This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call quash the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 and in Roc.No.33218/ 2019/F3, dated 26.08.2020, in so far as the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the panel and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioner notionally as Overseer from the date on which Mr.Patturajan was promoted as Overseer.

¶2The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant as NMR basis and joined in Melur Municipality in the year 1997. Thereafter, taking into consideration of NMR service, the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, sent proposal to the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Work Inspector along with one B.Patturajan in his letter, dated 18.08.2006. The 2nd respondent by an order, dated

30.06.2008, appointed B.Patturajan and one Gowri as Work Inspector. Since the petitioner was not appoint and hence the petitioner filed W.P.

(MD)No.9436 of 2008 and this Court directed the respondents to consider and pass orders within a period of four weeks. But the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide letter, dated

27.02.2009. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner approached the Court for granting relief, the respondents orally terminated the petitioner from service from January 2009. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2009 to quash the rejection order and consequently, to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner as Work Inspector from the date on which the petitioner's juniors were appointed as Work Inspector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.73, dated

25.05.2009. This Court, vide order, dated 09.04.2013, quashed the order, dated 27.02.2009 and directed the respondents to take note of G.O.Ms. No.73, dated 25.05.2009 and grant the benefits that were granted to the similarly placed persons.

¶3Based on the above said order, the 2nd respondent vide order, dated 30.06.2008, granted relief to the petitioner as well as to the juniors of the petitioner and absorbed them as Work Inspector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.183, Municipal Administration, dated 19.02.2008. The seniority list of Work Inspector was released by the 2nd respondent, dated

25.03.2015, wherein the petitioner's name was placed in Serial No.70. The claim of the petitioner that he ought to have been included below Patturajan who was appointed as Technical Assistant based on the recommendation, dated 18.08.2006. Subsequently, the said Patturajan was also promoted as Overseer within a month and he was placed in Serial No.50 in the seniority list of Overseer released by the 2nd respondent, dated 18.12.2017. Since the orders were not implemented the petitioner filed contempt petition. Thereafter based on the orders of the Court, the petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 25.08.2004, i.e., after a delay of one and a half years. In the meanwhile, again, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.20737 of 2018, seeking to appoint the petitioner notionally from the date on which the petitioner's juniors were appointed as Work Inspector and promote the petitioner. This Court directed the respondents to dispose the appeal within two months. But the same was rejected, vide order, dated

19.02.2019. Therefore, again the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.13682 of 2019 and this Court, vide order, dated 17.12.2020, has held that the respondents are discriminating the petitioner as well as other similarly placed persons and held the impugned order is illegal and perverse. This Court also directed the respondents to grant notional promotion. Pending the above said writ petition, the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the impugned panel dated 26.09.2019 for promotion to the post of Overseer. Pending the present writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.23837 of 2019, the respondent issued subsequent panel for the year 2020 in proceedings Roc.No.33218/ 2019/F3, dated 26.08.2020 and hence filed an amendment petition in W.M.P.(MD)No.12435 of 2020 and the same is allowed by this Court.

¶4The contention of the petitioner is that when the similarly placed persons were granted appointment as early as 2008 itself, especially the said Patturajan, the petitioner is also eligible to be appointed as early as 2008 based on the recommendation letter dated 18.08.2006 and based on the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.06.2008 whereby the said B.Patturajan and Gowri were appointed as Work Inspectors. Consequently, the petitioner is claiming seniority and promotion. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶5The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted the written instructions, wherein it is stated that the petitioner cannot compare with the said Patturajan, since he is working in some other Municipality. Moreover, as per G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 25.05.2009, as on the date of G.O., the petitioner ought to have completed 10 years of service. Since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service, the petitioner is not entitled to absorption on par with Patturajan.

¶6Heard Mr.S.Govindan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

¶7The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner ought to have completed 10 years of service as on the date of 25.05.2009. Since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 25.05.2009.

¶8On perusing the said G.O., it is seen that the Commissioner of Municipal Administration has recommendation the petitioner's name. In the said recommendation's letter, it is stated that in the 3rd grade municipality, some 25 Technical Assistants were working and they were working until 29.11.2001, therefore, their service shall be regularized by granting relaxation wherever necessary. The relevant portion of the G.O., is extracted hereunder: "2. NkNy ,uz;lhtjhf gbf;fg;gl;l efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizahpd; fbjq;fspy;> %d;whk;epiy efuhl;rpfspy;

29.11.2001 tiu njhopy;El;g cjtpahsh;fshf njhlh;e;J gzpGhpe;J tUk; 25 egh;fspd; gl;baiy muRf;F mDg;gp> Nkw;gb gzpahsh;fspd; taJ tuk;G Fwpj;j tpjp> Ntiy tha;g;gjk; %yk; epakdk; kw;Wk; ,d Row;rp Mfpait Fwpj;j tpjpfspypUe;J tpyf;fspj;J murhiz toq;FkhW NfhhpAs;sdh;. ...

(i) jw;NghJs;s fhypg;gzpaplq;fspy; kl;LNk Nkw;gb gzpahsh;fs; <h;j;Jf; nfhs;sg;gl Ntz;Lk;.

(ii) ,jw;nfd kpifg;gzpaplq;fs; VJk; cUthf;fg;glf; $lhJ.

(iii) NghJkhd gzpaplq;fs; ,y;yhj epiyapy;> Nkw;gb gzpahsh;fis

fhj;jpUg;Nghh;

gl;baypy;

itj;J fhypg;gzpaplq;fs; Vw;gLk;NghJ epakdk; nra;ayhk;.

(iv) NkYk; 29.11.2001 Kd;dh; tiu njhopy;El;g cjtpahsh;fshf gzpakh;j;jg;gl;L 10 tUlk; gzp Kbj;j gzpahsh;fs; kl;LNk Nkw;gb gl;baypy; Nrh;f;fg;gl Ntz;Lk;." Under Clause 3 Sub-clause 4, it has been stated that who were completed 10 years of service as on 29.11.2001 can be granted regularization.

¶9The contention of the petitioner is that even though the said condition is imposed, one Patturajan was granted relaxation. The said Patturajan was appointed in the year 1995 and he would have completed 10 years only in the year 2005, but he was granted absorption. Moreover, 25 persons, namely Sivakumar and others were granted regularization, even though they were appointed in the year 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The relevant list is reproduced hereunder:

¶10On perusing this list, it is seen that none of them were appointed 10 years prior to 29.11.2001. One T.Arun in serial no.24 was appointed on 01.09.2001. The said person has not completed even one year but he was granted regularization under G.O.Ms.No.73, dated

25.05.2009. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that regularization was granted under G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 25.05.2009, after completion of 10 years is incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief.

¶11The next contention that was raised by the respondents is that the petitioner cannot compare himself with the said Patturajan, since he is working in some other Municipality. It is seen that the said 25 persons in the list are working in different municipalities. Therefore, this contention of the respondents is meaningless and is liable to be rejected.

¶12The next contention of the respondents is that under G.O.Ms. No.309 Municipal Administration Department, dated 25.08.2014, relaxation was granted and thereafter, the petitioner was granted regularization and relaxation. On perusal of the records, the said relaxation was not granted to persons stated in the list mentioned supra. They were appointed during various years i.e. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that relaxation was granted to the petitioner by G.O. and hence the petitioner cannot claim further concession is unacceptable. More so relaxation is not at all necessary when the other persons were granted absorption as Work Inspector.

¶13Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents shall grant absorption to the petitioner from 2008 onwards, fix the petitioner's name in the appropriate place in the seniority list and consequently grant notional promotion with consequential monetary benefits. Since the petitioner has challenged the impugned promotion panel, this Court is of the considered opinion, the same need not be quashed, but the petitioner's name shall be placed at the appropriate place along with the others in the list and grant promotion. Hence the impugned panels are modified to that extent.

¶14With the above said observation, the writ petition is allowed. Since the petitioner is litigating for the cause for several years and has filed several writ petitions, this Court is imposing a cost of Rs.5000/- on the respondents and the said amount is payable to the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No

27.04.2023 Internet : Yes (2/2) NCC : Yes / No Tmg To

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, 6th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5. S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg

27.04.2023 (2/2)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20458, 20459 of 2019, 12434 and 12435 of 2020 M.Sasikumar ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, 6th Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.20305/2018/F3, dated 26.09.2019 and in Roc.No.33218/2019/F3, dated 26.08.2020, in so far as the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the panel and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioner notionally as Overseer from the date on which Mr.Patturajan was promoted as Overseer. (Prayer amended, vide Court order, dated 27.04.2023, in W.M.P. (MD)No.12437 of 2020 in W.P.(MD)No.23837 of 2019) For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader *****