(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 01.08.2023 made in W.P.No.4683 of 2019 and allow this Writ Appeal.)
Krishnaswamy Govindarajan, J.
1. The unsuccessful respondents before the Writ Court are the appellants herein.
2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein for the following relief:
"Calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to the impugned letter No.13126/C1/2018 dated 12.06.2018, quash the said impugned letter dated 12.06.2018 and consequently, direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner herein from the date of his joining duty in the office of the 3rd respondent and grant the petitioner herein, pensionary and other benefits accruing therefrom from the date of his initial appointment in the Boat Building Yard, Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation."
3. For a better understanding, the respondent is referred to as the "writ petitioner," and the appellants herein are referred to as "the respondents."
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that as per G.O.Ms.No.204, Forest and Fisheries Department, dated 23.02.1983, the Heads of Departments were requested to absorb the retrenched workers of the Boat Building Yard on a temporary basis initially. After making such temporary appointments, the Heads of Departments were required to send proposals to the Administrative Department seeking relaxation of the age limit and educational qualifications, if necessary, based on the merits of each case.
5 (i) The petitioner claims that as per G.O.Ms.No.204, he was appointed as an Office Assistant in the office of the ESI Dispensary, Sathur, temporarily, and he joined duty on 15.11.1984. At the time of joining, he had exceeded the age limit and did not possess the required educational qualifications. A proposal was sent to regularise the petitioner by relaxing these conditions, and regularisation was effected on 10.11.1989 through proceedings dated 08.02.1989.
(ii) It is the further case of the petitioner that more than 260 retrenched employees of the Boat Building Yard, Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation, were re-employed and regularised from the date of joining Government service. However, the petitioner was not regularised from the date of joining Government duty. Several representations were sent by the petitioner, but his request was rejected on 12.06.2018.
(iii) It is the further case of the petitioner that he retired on 31.05.2005, and thereafter, in January 2019, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition seeking regularisation from the date of joining duty in the office of the 3rd respondent i.e., on 15.11.1984 and seeking pensionary benefits from that date onwards.
6. The respondents in the writ petition filed a detailed counter-affidavit. In the said counter, it was stated that the petitioner's regularisation was effected after granting relaxation of age and educational qualifications, and his service was regularised with effect from 10.11.1989. The Government further contended that G.O.Ms.No.204 dated 23.02.1983 is very clear that the appointments will be treated as fresh appointments and the recruits will be placed on par with other new recruits. Considering all these aspects, the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 was passed.
7. The Writ Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition on the ground that no justifiable reasons were given by the Government, despite the respondents' strenuous contention that the Government should follow uniformity and cannot take a different stand in respect of the Boat Building Yard employees who were absorbed into different departments.
8. We heard the arguments of the appellants and the respondent.
9. Even though the impugned order challenged in the writ petition is dated 12.06.2018, it is only a communication sent by the appellant rejecting the request of the respondent seeking regularisation from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner's regularisation was effected on 10.11.1989 after granting age and educational qualification relaxations. It is very clear that the writ petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant from the date of issuance of that order. This order of regularisation dated 10.11.1989 has not been challenged.
10. G.O.Ms.No.204 dated 23.02.1983 is also clear with respect to appointments. The relevant paragraph, No. 4, is extracted hereunder:
"4. The Heads of Departments are requested to absorb these workers on a temporary basis initially, having regard to the merits and qualifications possessed by the candidates and the qualifications prescribed for the post. These appointments will be in the nature of fresh appointments and the appointments will be treated on a par with the other new recruits to such posts. After making the temporary appointments, the Heads of Departments shall send proposals to the Administrative Departments concerned for relaxation of age limit and educational qualifications, if necessary, based on merits in each case."
11. From the above-said G.O., it is clear that the appointment is fresh in nature and the appointees should be treated on par with other new recruits.
12. The petitioner remained silent from the year 1989 until 2019, and all of a sudden, he filed a writ petition claiming regularisation from the date of original appointment in Government service, i.e., 15.11.1984. The petitioner also did not challenge the original order of regularisation dated 10.11.1989. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2005; even thereafter, he did not approach this Court immediately. Merely submitting some representations and receiving communications rejecting those representations will not revive a dead cause of action. Furthermore, the petitioner was appointed only after granting relaxation of age and educational qualifications.
13. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the order of the Writ Court is not in accordance with the materials placed before it. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ appeal.
14. Accordingly the Writ Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.08.2023 in W.P.No.4683 of 2019. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
