Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V. THANKAPPAN versus PRESIDENT, KOKOTTUTHALAI

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V. Thankappan v. President, Kokottuthalai - Writ Petition No.16318 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 387 (14 June 2005)



In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 14/06/2005

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM

Writ Petition No.16318 of 2005
and Writ Petition Nos. 16319 to 16321, 16322 to 16325, 16616, 16619,
16627 , 16629, 16631, 16632, 16642, 16660, 16665, 16666, 16668, 16500,
16659, 16547, 16556, 16546, 16549 and 16607 of 2005
and WPMP.Nos.17749 to 17760, 17761 to 17772, 18107 to 18109, 18112
to 18114, 18123 to 18125, 18127 to 18129, 18132 to 18134, 18135 to 1813
7, 18146 to 18148, 18167 to 18169, 18174 to 18176, 18177 to 18179, 18
181 to 18183, 17951 to 17953, 18164 to 18166, 18018 to 18020, 18032
to 18034, 18015 to 18017, 18022 to 18024 and 18095 to 18097 of 2005.

Writ Petition No.16318 of 2005:

V. Thankappan .. Petitioner

-Vs-

1. President, Kokottuthalai
Village Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.

2. The Block Development Officer
Kurunthankodur Panchayat Union
Kanyakumari District.

3. The District Collector
Collectorate
Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil.

4. The Director of Rural Development
Department, Jeen's Road
Saidapet,
Chennai 15.
5. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
the Secretary to Government
Rural Development Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9. .. Respondents


Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated
therein.

For petitioners : Mr. P.M. Subramanian
for Mr. S. Arunachalam

For respondents : Mr. S. Gomathinayagam
4 and 5 Spl. Govt., Pleader
Mr. R. Vijayakumar
Govt., Advocate for R.1 to 3


:COMMON ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,) Since the relief sought for is one and the same and identical in all these cases, these writ petitions are disposed by the following common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed against the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 01.06.2004, in and by which the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in the respective Panchayats have been negatived.

3. According to the petitioners, they are part-time employees in various panchayats in Kanyakumari District, working as sanitary workers, over-head tank operators or water supply assistants. They approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to bring them under regular time scale of pay. It is their case before the Tribunal that though they have been appointed on part-time basis, they have been working for number of years and some of them have been for ten years and above.

4. The District Collector, Kanyakumari, third respondent before the Tribunal, filed a counter affidavit contending that all the applicants are only part-time employees appointed by the Presidents of various Panchayats in Kanyakumari District for doing sanitary work or mainly for operating the over-head tanks and valves and some of them have been appointed as water supply attenders and they are only engaged for about one or two hours at the maximum and they are not full-time employees. It is further stated that they are not full-time workers/ employees in the Panchayats, except Bill Collectors, who were appointed as full-time workers by the special orders passed by the Government. The District Collector is functioning as an Inspector of Panchayats, discharging powers conferred on him under the provisions of the Panchayat Act and he is the appointing authority and not the President. It is also stated that no fund has been sanctioned to the village Panchayat for over-head tank operators or water supply assistants and there is no necessity for appointing them on regular basis or on full-time basis. It is also stated that the Government have passed orders in the year 1997-98 and directed the Panchayats to pay the parttime employees a consolidated salary of Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per month and the same was increased to Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- and now at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. The Administrative Tribunal based on the above pleadings, considered the main question, namely, whether their prayer for regularisation and bringing them under regular time scale of pay can be ordered.

5. Taking note of the specific information furnished by the District Collector, namely, that there is no sanctioned post and fund, and the nature of work being performed is only part-time, accepting the stand taken, the Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed all the applications. Questioning the same, present writ petitions have been filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Even at the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly states that they are not pressing the main question relating to regularisation of their services in the respective Panchayats. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on two earlier Division Bench orders of this Court dated 01.10.2004 made in W.P.Nos.28364 to 28369 of 2004 and the subsequent order dated 29.11.2004 made in W.P.No.34586 of 2004, would request that direction may be issued to the respondents for payment of wages on the basis of daily rate as fixed from time to time, so long as they continue in the present capacity.

8. In view of the fact that the petitioners have given up their main relief, namely, regularisation of their services, we are of the view that no further adjudication is required in these petitions. However, in view of the limited request made by the learned counsel, we intend to give further reasons. We have already referred to the categorical information furnished by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, who is the Inspector of Panchayat and the competent authority under the Panchayts Act. No reply has been filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal controverting those factual details. In such circumstances, we are of the view that unless there are materials to show that their nature of work is full-time, there cannot be any such positive direction as claimed by the counsel for the petitioners.

9. We have also perused the two earlier Division Bench orders passed by this Court. In those orders, the learned Judges have specifically mentioned that those employees are entitled to full-time rate, only if they work full time/whole day and not part-time as claimed by the District Collector. In such a circumstance, we are not inclined to make such an observation as claimed. However, the petitioners are free to approach the District Collector concerned or higher authority/Government to vindicate their grievance if the same is permissible under law.

With the above observation, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. Index:Yes

Internet:Yes

kh

To

1. President, Kokottuthalai

Village Panchayat,

Kanyakumari District.

2. The Block Development Officer

Kurunthankodur Panchayat Union

Kanyakumari District.

3. The District Collector

Collectorate

Kanyakumari District at

Nagercoil.

4. The Director of Rural Development

Department, Jeen's Road

Saidapet,

Chennai 15.

5. The Secretary to Government

Rural Development Department

Fort St. George

Chennai 9.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.