P. Ravichandran Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), Office of Executive Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) vs The Agricultural Production Commissioner and the Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, The Additional Secretary, Agricultural Department and The Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering)

T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner namely, P. Ravichandran has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the first Respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 257, Agricultural (Btep-3) Department dated 12.7.2000 in so far as regularization of the Petitioner with effect from 16.7.1993 and consequential order passed by the second Respondent in his proceedings Lr. No. 42563/Btep 3/2004-2 dated 11.7.2005 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the first Respondent to regularize the service of the Petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from the date of joining on 29.1.1989.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) on compassionate grounds since his father late S.S. Perumal Raja, the then Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), Soil-Conservation Scheme, Srivilliputhur died in harness on 22.3.1987. Though the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and the same was made initially under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, there was a delay in regularizing the Petitioner''s service on account of the fact that the Assistant Engineers (Agricultural Engineering) who were also appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Subordinates Service Rules approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of their service with effect from the date of their appointment. The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by the similarly placed persons by giving direction to the Government to regularize their services with effect from their date of appointment. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government considered the cases of the Assistant Engineers(Agricultural Engineering) who were appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules and the Petitioner''s case was also considered along with others and the Government after giving careful consideration of the request issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 511 Agriculture (A-III) Department dated 19.9.1995 regularizing the services of as many as 115 Assistant Engineers (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from their date of initial appointment. The Petitioner''s name was also found in serial No. 107 in the said G.O. regularizing the service as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from 29.1.1989.

Subsequently, the first Respondent had chosen to issue a letter No. 16276/AA 4/96-3, dated 12.12.1996 deleting the name of the Petitioner from the list of 115 Engineers stating that the case of the Petitioner can be considered separately and orders will be issued after getting specific concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, further citing another reason that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the Petitioner made representation before the first Respondent. On considering the Petitioner''s representation, the first Respondent issued an order in G.O. (Ms) No. 257 Agriculture (Btep 3) Department dated 12.7.2000 regularizing the service of the Petitioner with effect from 16.7.1993 F.N. stating that G.O. was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 156 (Labor & Employment Department) dated 16.7.1993 for regularization of service of candidates appointed on compassionate grounds with effect from the date of issue of the said G.O. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that when there is no specific rule to give the benefit of regularization to the persons who are appointed on compassionate ground, the Respondent cannot treat the Petitioner differently for the reason that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground.

Secondly, it was also contended that the first Respondent came to regularize the services of the similarly placed persons who came to be appointed under 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. The case of the Petitioner would be considered along with other 10(a)(i) appointees. After considering the case of the Petitioner with other appointees cannot choose to regularize differently than others without any basis or rule, by passing the impugned order, and particularly cannot say that the Petitioner for having appointed on compassionate ground, should take the date of regularization only from the date of passing the relevant G.O.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent would submit that the Petitioner was admittedly appointed on compassionate ground. Therefore, he cannot seek the benefit of regularization along with others who came to be appointed in accordance with Rules and Regulations for a moment I am not able to agree with such contention for the simple reason that the Petitioner was also appointed on compassionate ground under 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. After his appointment, when similarly placed persons who also came to be appointed under 10(a)(i) approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking the prayer for regularization of the service from the date of their original appointment, the Tribunal considering the prayer made by the similarly placed persons, issued a direction to the Government and the Government also in compliance of the order issued by the Tribunal came to pass an order of regularization of the service of 115 Assistant Engineers (Agricultural Engineers) from the date of their initial appointment.

The Respondent while regularizing the service of 115 Assistant Engineers with effect from the date of their initial appointment also considered the case of the Petitioner and whereby the Petitioner was also granted the benefit of similarly placed persons who were appointed under 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. That be so, the Respondent later on, without any rhyme or reason cannot seek to distinguish the appointment of the Petitioner only on the ground that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and therefore, the order of regularization will take its effect only from the date of G.O. The above said facts are all ex-facie against good conscience, justice and equity. Further G.O. Ms. No. 156, Labor and Employment Department dated 16.7.1993 came to be passed only after four years from the date of the Petitioner''s appointment. Further, the Petitioner was appointed on 18.9.1989 under 10(a)(i) if they have failed to impose the condition on the date of appointment, subsequently after four years by citing the G.O. No. 156 dated 16.7.1993 cannot force the Petitioner to comply with the conditions which admittedly came to be imposed after four years from the date of his initial appointment. That will go against the the basic principles that the amendment already given with retrospective effect should not adversely affect any employee. On that basis, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Government Advocate and the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.