P. Pappammal vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—The Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 8926 of 2009 (P.Pappammal) was appointed as a part-time water woman on 01.06.1977 in the 5th Respondent school, which is an aided school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and admittedly her appointment was within the sanctioned strength of the 5th Respondent school and she has been continuing in service ever since her date of appointment till date. The Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 8927 of 2009 (M.Uma) was appointed as a part-time water woman in the 5th Respondent school on 01.04.1993 within the sanctioned strength and she has also been continuing in service without any break. The writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 7256 of 2009 (N.Maheswari) was appointed as a part-time sweeper in the 5th Respondent school on 04.06.1982 within the sanctioned strength and she is also continuing in the said post till date.

With the common grievance that their services have not been regularised inspite of their repeated requests, the Petitioner have filed these writ petitions seeking for a direction against the Respondents to regularise their services in their respective posts, with all service benefits from the date of their appointment. Since all the writ petitions are filed for the same relief, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

The Respondents/Education Department have not disputed the above said factual position. However, it is stated that by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.02.2006, a direction has been given by the Government that persons who are working as daily wagers in the Government Departments and who have completed 10 years of services as on 01.01.2006 are to be regularised in the time scale of pay, subject to their otherwise eligibility. It is also stated by the Educational Authorities that the proposals in respect of these Petitioners, along with similarly situated persons, who have been appointed on part-time basis on consolidated basis, have been sent to the Director of School Education for regularisation based on the recommendations of the respective Chief Educational Officers and the Respondents are awaiting orders from the Director of School Education.

In respect of Government servants who are working in various departments of the Government, there was already in existence G.O.Ms. No. 528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 10.10.1998, to the effect that part-time employees in Government Departments are to be regularised. When such a direction was given in one of the writ petitions in W.P. No. 11707/2006, dated 22.12.2006, by this Court, the department has filed a writ appeal in 391 of 2007, in which, by judgment dated 25.10.2007, this Court dismissed the writ appeal and, therefore, in respect of the Government servants, even before G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 28.02.2006, has come into existence, the prior G.O.Ms. No. 528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.F) Deprtment, dated 10.10.1988, has conferred such rights to the Government servants.

It was, based on the above said factual position, this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No. 872 of 2008, etc. batch,, in the order dated 14.12.2008, has given direction to regularise those Government employees who have been under the consolidated pay and working on part time basis. In the above said batch of cases, Justice S.NAGAMUTHU, having taking note of the fact that the Petitioners therein have put in more than 10 years of services in their respective departments, either as part-time employees or as daily wagers, held that they are entitled for regularisaton as prr G.O.Ms. No. 528, dated 10.10.1988, and also the subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 22. dated 28.02.2006, and that was also the view taken by R.S.Ramanathan, J in W.P.(MD) No. 11937 of 2009, dated 22.07.29010, wherein also the learned Judge, while referring to the facts of the case that the Petitioner therein was employed as a part-time sweeper for more than 15 years, has held that the Petitioner therein was entitled for regularisation as per G.O.Ms. No. 22, 28.02.2006.

In respect of some of the employees similarly situated and working in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science Department, when the issue was considered by a Division of this Court consisting of N.Paul Vasanthakumar and R.Subbiah, JJ in W.A.(MD() No. 68 and 79 of 2010, in the judgment dated 20.01.2011, the Division Bench has also confirmed the said consistent view of the learned Single Judges of this Court and directed the department to regularise the services of those candidates and to pay all arrears within a stipulated time.

On the facts of the present case, even though the Petitioners cannot be, in strict sense, held to be Government servants and G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, may not be directed to be applied, the Government, in respect of contingent staff working in aided private schools, has issued various orders commencing from G.O.Ms. No. 577, Education Department, dated 11.4.1981, wherein the Government, while approving the proposal of the Director of School Education, has directed that contingency staff in aided schools who have put in five years and more of continuous services as on 01.04.1979 and who are assessed for grant should be taken to the time scale of pay similar to the categories in the Government service from 01.04.1979. The operative portion of G.O.Ms. No. 577, Education Department, dated 01.04.1981, reads as under:

The Government approve the proposal of the Director of School Education and direct that the contingent staff in Aided Schools who have put in five years and more of continuous service as on 1.4.79 and who are assessed for grant, be given a time scale of pay applicable to similar categories in Government Service, from time to time with effect from 1.4.79. The Director of School Education should ensure that the managements of Aided Schools do not appoint any contingent staff in future without his approval. The instructions issued in G.O.Ms. No. 52 Finance dated 12.1.77 should scrupulously be followed while bringing the contingent staff into regular establishment and the Director of School Education is requested to send proposals of bringing the contingent the contingent staff in to regular establishment who will be completing five years of service after 1.4.79 to Government for approval.

Therefore, it is clear that the Government has taken a consistent decision as that of the Government Department even in respect of the private aided schools relating to the services of the contingent staff, who include part-time sweepers, etc. That has also been followed subsequently by another G.O. No. 577, Education Department, dated 30.04.1986 wherein also in respect of some left-out candidates, the rule of five years continuous service and bringing them under the time scale of pay has been continued and the annexure to the said G.O. contain various persons working in various schools on part-time basis either as water women, water men or sweepers. Again, in a recent G.O.Ms. No. 542, Education Department, dated 10.05.1991, the Government, in continuation of the earliest G.O.Ms. No. 577, dated 01.04.1981, has brought in within the scope of the time scale of pay in respect of the remaining left out persons as per the schedule contained in the said G.O.

However, inspite of consistent efforts taken by the Government in passing various orders for bringing part-time employees working in private aided schools under regular time scale pay, the names of the Petitioners and few others appear to have been left out. A reference to the counter affidavit filed by the education authorities also shows that in respect of those left out persons, which include these Petitioners, proposals are pending with the Director of School Education. When the Government has taken, as a matter of policy, decision from 1981 onwards to regularise those candidates, who are kept under part-time employment with paltry amount paid as salary, the pendency of proposal with the Director of School Eduction, in my considered opinion, does not disentitle the claim of the Petitioners for regularisation in time scale of pay, if they are otherwise entitled to. A reference to the list of part-time employees annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the Education Authorities shows that they have been in continuous employment for a long period on a paltry payment of consolidated pay while they are eligible for time scale of pay, which is much more.

In such view of the matter, taking note of the fact that the Government itself has not distinguished in respect of part-time employees working in government departments and such employees working in aided private schools, it is certainly not open to the Respondents to keep the Petitioners in suspended animation for such a long time.

Accordingly, all the three writ petitions stand allowed with a direction against the Director of School Education to pass orders on the recommendations and proposal submitted by the respective Chief Educational Officers within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Thereafter, the Government shall pass appropriate orders granting regularisation and bringing the Petitioners into time scale of pay by issuing necessary Government Orders within twelve weeks thereafter. It is needless to state that the Petitioners are entitled for arrears with effect from the date of their original appointment, after deducting the amount already paid to them. No. costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 in WP(MD)Nos. 8926 & 8927 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2009 in WP(MD) No. 7256 of 2009 are closed.