V. Srinivasan vs The Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department and The Chief Engineer (Highways), NABARD Works

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner has filed the Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to

regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment namely 02.02.98 and consider him in the vacancies occurring in

regular post with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver by the 2nd respondent on daily wages basis on 02.02.98 and since then, he has been working

without any break. Due to long and continuous service, the petitioner, by mentioning his qualification and experience to the post of Driver, made a

representation to the Chief Engineer, NABARD, Chennai/2nd respondent herein on 20.03.2000, seeking to recommend his name to the post of

Driver on regular basis with regularisation of his service from the date of his initial appointment. But, unfortunately, the plight of the petitioner was

not considered. Again, the petitioner made another representation to the Chief Engineer/1st respondent herein on 01.04.2000 seeking

regularisation of his service from the date of his initial appointment. As there was no response, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the G.O.Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated

28.02.2006, which says that the employees working on daily wages basis, should be regularised on completion of 10 years of service as on

01.01.2006. On that basis, prayed for the aforesaid direction.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has admitted that the petitioner was issued with Identity Card, so as to facilitate the petitioner to

move freely in high security zones viz., Secretariat, Airport, Railway Stations, along with Chief Engineer (H) in view of the disturbing situation

prevails throughout the State. Again, in para 4 of the counter, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as a regular driver on daily wages basis.

However, it was denied that the service of the petitioner was governed by any service Rule of the Tamil Nadu Government nor by the Tamil Nadu

State and Subordinate Service Rules. He further submitted that the petitioner may be directed to furnish the representation, as he has not given any

representation to the Government for consideration by the respondents on the basis of the G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.02.2006, if any such

representation is given by the petitioner, the same will be duly considered in accordance with law.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

When the office of the Chief Engineer (H) NABARD was formed to monitor the road improvement schemes taken up with the loan assistance

from NABARD and the staff of the office of the Chief Engineer (H) NABARD by way of redeployment of staff available with the Highways and

Rural Works Department on a temporary basis, the said Chief Engineer (H) NABARD was provided with a staff car. The respondent having

thought that the appointment of the regular driver could incur recurring expenditure and for the reason that, no regular driver was provided for the

said staff car, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis as a driver, since he happens to know driving and also no appointment order was

issued. Therefore, the services of the petitioner are not governed under any service Rule of Tamil Nadu Government, moreso, the Tamil Nadu

State and Subordinate Service Rules to seek any benefit from the writ Court. Though the averments made by the respondents in their counter

though clearly shows that the petitioner was issued with Identity Card as a Driver, so as to facilitate the petitioner to move freely in high security

zones viz., Secretariat, Airport, Railway Stations, along with Chief Engineer (H) in view of the disturbing situation prevails throughout the State, this

does not mean that the petitioner was a staff with any regular appointment as a driver from the office of the respondent. Further, the respondent by

filing the counter, contended that the petitioner by fabrication with ulterior motive to establish the fact that his application submitted earlier claiming

for appointment of driver, has not been till date disposed of, also does not require adjudication on that point. Therefore, this Court, to meet the

ends of justice, by taking into account of his continuous service in the office of the 2nd respondent, directs the the 1st respondent to consider his

representation on the basis of the G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 28.02.2006, which says that the employees working on daily wages basis, should be

regularised on completion of 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No Costs.