M. Padmavathy vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in

G.O. Ms. No. 27 AD & TW Department, dated 15.02.2006, and all consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na. Ka. Ya2/979/2006,

dated 07.07.2008, denying the regularization with regular scale of pay and arrears with effect from the date of initial appointment to the petitioner,

quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Scavenger with effect from 09.11.1982 and

grant regular pay scale with effect from 09.11.1982 with all arrears and other attendant benefits. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is given here-

under:

As per proceedings, dated 15.07.1982, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange Office for appointment to the

post of Scavenger in the scale of pay of Rs. 250 plus allowances and she was appointed so in the Government Hostel for College Students,

Perambur, Chennai, as per subsequent proceedings dated 09.11.1982, along with one Mr. G. Narayanasamy, who was appointed as Cook for

the same Hostel. Two other persons by name Tmt. J. Prakasammal and Tmt. Kuppabai were also appointed as Cooks. While so, when

declaration of probation was ordered in respect of Mr. G. Narayanasamy, Tmt. J. Prakasammal and Tmt. Kuppabai, Cooks, on 11.11.1984,

02.03.1986 and 11.01.1989 respectively, and they were also brought into regular scale of pay with effect from their date of initial appointment, the

service of the petitioner was not regularized and she was not given regular scale of pay on par with the above mentioned persons. By highlighting

his grievance that while the aforesaid persons were given regular pay of scale in their respective posts from their date of initial appointment and, for

no reason, she alone was singled out and denied the benefit to which she is legally entitled to, the petitioner made very many representations which

evoked no response, however, strangely, the 1st respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 27, AD & TW Department, dated 15.02.2006, followed by

consequential orders, denying regularization with regular scale of pay and arrears even though similarly placed persons as aforementioned were

given such benefits. In other words, the service of the petitioner was regularized only with effect from 01.04.1988 after completion of service along

with 41 employees, thereby, she was not given arrears of pay and other attendant benefits as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, she has

come up with the present writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made three-fold submissions.

Firstly, he submits that, when Mr. G. Narayanasamy, Cook and Tmt. J. Prakasammal, Cook, were granted regularization from the date of their

initial appointment and consequently, they were given all service benefits including regular scale of pay from such date, denial of such benefit to the

petitioner, who is appointed along with the said individuals, on the ground that she was a Scavenger, is a clear act of discrimination and the

impugned proceedings flowing in such background will not have any sanctity in the eye of law.

Secondly, he submits that while the very same department regularized the services of 34 contingent employees with effect from the date of their

initial appointment as per G.O. No. 153, AD & TW Department, dated 03.09.1997, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner in fine tune with

the aforesaid G.O. is again in breach of the equality clause.

Ultimately, he adds that the petitioner has put in about 24 long years of valuable service and because of the impugned G.O. passed by the first

respondent, at the time of retirement, she would not be in a position to get the service benefits proportionate to the actual long period of service as

would be drawn by other similarly placed persons like J. Narayanasamy and J. Prakasammal, who were appointed along with the petitioner.

So submitting, learned counsel pleaded that this is a deserving case for grant of the prayer sought for.

Learned Government Advocate, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, submitted that the petitioner having joined the

service of the respondents in the post of Scavenger, cannot claim benefits in terms of what was given to the Cooks - G. Narayanasamy, J.

Prakasammal and Kuppabai for the reason that those three persons were appointed in the vacancies against Cooks that were brought into the time

scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment as per Government Norms, whereas, in the case of the petitioner, she was appointed with the

working duration per day for about three years, therefore, she cannot be treated on par with the Cooks who have to work from the morning till

late night. However, the service of the petitioner was also regularized by the impugned G.O. and hence, she cannot be allowed to assail the said

proceedings issued by the first respondent.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side.

At the first instance, it must be expressed here that this Court is not able to agree with the submissions of the learned Additional Government

Pleader for more than one reason.

Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed along with two other persons/Cooks by name G. Narayanasamy and J.

Prakasammal. After sometime, declaration of probation was ordered to G. Narayanasamy and J. Prakasammal on 11.11.1984 and 02.03.1986

respectively. In the case of another Cook by name Kuppabai, declaration of probation was ordered on 11.01.1989. Consequently, those three

individuals were brought into regular scale of pay from their date of initial appointment, but, in the case of the petitioner, for the reason that she was

appointed as Scavenger and that her work would get completed in few hours, the respondents refused to treat her case on par with that of

Narayanasamy and Prakasammal and such discrimination and unfair treatment can never be accepted, for, the impugned order does not even

whisper that she has to work only for two hours every day. Even otherwise, it cannot be lost sight of that when the service of the Cooks is related

to food served in the Government Hostel, equally, the Scavenger is also required to clean-up the Hostel area so as to maintain a clean and litter-

free environment.

Further, when the respondents/Department issued G.O. No. 153, AD & TW Department, dated 03.09.1997, regularizing the services of 34

contingent employees with effect from their date of initial appointment along with monetary benefits like arrears of pay and allowances, it is very

unfortunate that the petitioner is denied such benefits.

Also, the petitioner has put in more than 24 years of long service as Scavenger, cleaning up the entire Hostel. That being so, when it is accepted

by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed through Employment Exchange by proceedings dated 15.07.1982 and that continuation of

her service is required in the said Hostel, showing differential treatment to the petitioner/Scavenger and better treatment to the Cooks is absolutely

impermissible in law. Therefore, this Court disagreeing with the impugned order, is inclined to quash the same. Consequently, the Writ Petition is

allowed and the respondents are directed to grant regularization to the petitioner in the regular scale of pay with effect from the date of her initial

appointment i.e., 09.11.1982, with all monetary benefits including arrears due to her on such regularization, and, needless to mention, such exercise

shall have to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.