WP/195/1996 of TMT.S.RAJAMANI Vs THE SECY TO GOVT RURAL DEVELOP on 20 December 2002

:O R D E R

Original petitioner was one S.Rajamani, wife of one late K.Sangili.

Thereafter, it seems that even this S.Rajamani has expired and the petitionerhas been allowed to be substituted in her place. The contention of theoriginal petitioner was that her husband Sangili was working in the PanchayatUnion of K.Paramathi Panchayat Union, Karur Taluk, Trichy District, as it thenwas, as a driver of the road roller allotted to the Panchayat Union for selfsufficiency scheme. He worked between 15.4.1981 to 11.1.1990, when hesuddenly expired. The third respondent, Commissioner of Panchayat Union, hadpaid Rs.2,000/- for his last rites, but thereafter his gratuity, bonus, deathbenefits, retirement benefits, pension and compassionate appointment etc., wasnot given by the third respondent at all. The petitioner claims to have madeseveral representations, but did not receive any reply. The firstrepresentation seems to have been answered by the second respondent by itsproceedings dated 24.1.1992 bearing Na.Ka.Ta.No.4/31706 /91, wherein it wasadmitted that the said Sangili was appointed on 2 4.2.1981 as a dirver of theroad roller by the proceedings dated 7.4.1981 and that a further resolutionwas also passed by the Panchayat Union dated 27.4.1981 appointing him as adriver. The second respondent/Collector had also directed for the settlementof the dues and family pension, but nothing happened. The petitioner claimsthat she sent four representations, including representation to the JointSecretary, Chief Minister's Special Cell, but to no effect. It is furtherpointed out that another letter was sent by the Collector on 31.7.199 3 to theSpecial Officer, Chief Minister's Grievance Cell and the petitioner ultimatelyseems to have sent a last representation dated 12.9.1994.

2. The whole difficulty is that the State Government has not passed any order. The third respondent has filed a counter, wherein the thirdrespondent suggests that the road roller was actually purchased and thedeceased Sangili was directly recruited to the post of road roller driver. Itis pointed out that he was appointed under the emergent circumstances becausethere was nobody to drive the road roller and some works had to be completedwithin a short period under the self sufficiency scheme. The counter furthergoes on to suggest that the petitioner, while in service, expired on11.1.1991. But, before that an objection was raised on his appointment bylocal and audit fund. However, those objections were subsequently dropped.The counter goes on to suggest further that proposals for creation of the postof road roller driver and seeking ratification for the irregular appointmentof the said Sangili were already sent by the Panchayat through proper channelby their communications dated 14.3.1991, 30.12.1994, 21 .2.1995 and 6.9.1995and the Collector had also sent proposals for sanction of the post of roadroller driver with effect from 15.4.1981 vide his communication dated15.10.1995 to the Director of Rural Development, Madras. However, no ordershave so far been passed.

3. In view of the fact that it is not disputed at any stage byanybody that Sangili was working as road roller driver for good long nine orten years, there can be no dispute about his entitlement. True it is, thathis appointment is irregular and done under the emergent circumstances. But,the Government is duty bound to regularise the post since the services havebeen taken from him. During the pendency of this writ petition, by an orderdated 18.1.2002, I had directed the Government to consider the proposals sentby the Panchayat Union and more particularly, the third respondent. However, for one full year, this order was not complied with. Therefore, again anorder came to be passed on 13.12.2002, directing the Additional GovernmentPleader to make a statement as to what had happened in respect of theconsideration of the proposal sent by the Panchayat Union to the Government.However, today also the learned Additional Government Pleader is not in aposition to state anything in respect of the consideration. In that view, itis clear that the Government has merely slept over the matter and has not evenbothered t o decide to regularise the post so that the concerned personbecomes entitled to the rightful dues. In view of this, the Government isdirected to finalise the proposals made by the Panchayat Union and recommendedby the Collector, and regularise the services of Sangili so that he becomesentitled for the benefits. The Government is directed to comply with thisorder within four months from today. The learned Additional GovernmentPleader has undertaken to inform the Government about this time limit. Afterthe regularisation of the services, the Government will calculate the benefitspayable to the family members and take further steps. The writ petition isallowed in the above terms. No costs.

Index : YesWebsite : Yes

KST.

To:

1. The Secretary to the GovernmentRural Development and LocalAdministration, Government ofTamil Nadu, Fort St.George,Chennai-9.

2. The Collector, Trichy DistrictTrichy.

3. The Commissioner, Panchayat UnionK.Paramathi, Karur TalukTrichy District.