C. Kanagasabapathy vs The Director of Town Panchayat, The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat and The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat

M. Chockalingam, J.—This writ petition was taken on file on transfer of O.A. No. 4990 of 2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

The contents of the petition along with the materials available are perused. The court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Counsel for the respondents.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner is 57 years old at the time of filing of the

petition; that in the year 1981, his name was sponsored by the employment exchange for absorption for employment in the Tamil Nadu Water

Supply and Drainage Board; that he was selected and appointed as Fitter Grade I on 10.3.1981 on daily wage basis. While he was continuing in

service, he was surrendered to the third respondent Town Panchayat, for which no willingness or consent was obtained; that on the contrary, he

made an objection for such surrender; that however, he was working under the third respondent Town Panchayat and he has been occupying the

quarters allotted to him as daily wage earner, though he was fully qualified to the post of Grade-I Fitter; that proposals were sent by the third

respondent on 30.08.1985 to the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Sivaganga, seeking to sanction the post of two electricians, one pipeline

fitter, one fitter and two watchman; that the said proposal was endorsed by the Collector of Sivaganga in his proceedings, dated 20.10.1985 to the

Director of Town Panchayat, the first respondent herein; that though the petitioner made number of representations to the authorities to regularise

his service, it was not done; that a Government Order came to be passed in favour of the daily wage earner to absorb them into regular vacancies

meant for direct recruitment based on their educational qualifications in the year 1999; that G.O.Ms. No. 125, Municipal Administration and

Water Supply Department, dated 27.5.1999, has been issued to bring the NMRs working in the Town Panchayats continuously on the crucial

date of 31.12.1996; that thousands of NMRs were absorbed in the year 1999; that the third respondent brought the applicant in the cadre of

water maintenance in the consolidated pay of Rs. 1000/- on 28.2.2001 with effect from 1.3.2001 and that the family circumstances compelled the

petitioner to join in that post and under the G.O., if a person in the cadre of consolidated pay is completed three years only, he will be brought into

the regular time scale, but the applicant got only one year of service and that if his service from 1985 was taken into consideration for

regularisation, he should have got all the benefits and under these circumstances, suitable directions have got to be issued to the respondents for

regularisation and also for further payment.

The court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on the above contentions.

After doing so, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to have the relief. It is not in controversy that the petitioner

was working as Fitter Grade-I on 10.3.1981 on daily wage basis in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. From 1985 onwards, he

has been working as daily wage earner under the third respondent Town Panchayat. The contention put forth that he was handed over by the

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board to the Panchayat despite his objections, cannot be countenanced even for a moment for the simple

reason that he has been occupying the quarters of the third respondent as daily wage earner for all along in the past. The G.O. came to be passed

in the year 1999 to regularise the NMRs and to absorb them. Concededly, the G.O. stipulates the period of three years of service. Therefore, the

G.O. was never given retrospective effect. The petitioner was working for consolidated payment of Rs. 1000/- under the third respondent. Even

the contention of the petitioner was that a proposal was forwarded, but nowhere it is stated that the proposal was accepted and the posts were

sanctioned.

The grievance of the petitioner that he was not regularised cannot be countenanced, since he could not satisfy the conditions under the G.O.

either or the post was not available for regularisation. Therefore, it would be quite clear that the petitioner seeks regularisation of service of his

post, which was not sanctioned either or available at that time. Under these circumstances, the contentions of the petitioner that he should be

regularised from 1985 and giving effect to the G.O. of the year 1999, benefits should be given, cannot be countenanced, though attractive at the

first instance. The petition does not carry any merit whatsoever both factually and legally. Under these circumstances, it requires an order of

dismissal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is also dismissed.