Employee Appointed Under Government Orders Is Entitled To Regularization Of Suspension Period & Subsistence Allowance: Madras High Court
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R.Sakthivel held that a Noon Meal Organizer is a public servant holding a substantive post under the State Government, and in the absence of statutory service rules, service conditions can be governed by administrative orders issued under Article 162 of the Constitution.
Background Facts
The respondent was a retired Noon Meal Organizer. She was placed under suspension on 22.08.2011. She had been involved in a criminal case. After the investigation, the final report was taken cognizance by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. There were three Calender Cases in which the employee was an accused.
A compromise had been entered into with the complainant. Thereafter, the Single Judge had quashed the further proceedings in the three Calender Cases. Departmental proceedings had also been initiated. It was found that the charges were not established.
The employee filed a writ petition seeking payment of benefits for the period of suspension. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the writ appeal before the High Court of Madras.
It was contended by the appellants that there were no service rules applicable to the Noon Meal Organizer (employee). It was further submitted that she did not belong to any cadre under the State Government. It was purely a service rendered under a Government Order.
On the other hand, the employee placed reliance on the Judgment in the G.Periannan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and others. The Single Judge examined the same issue i.e. whether a Noon Meal Organizer could be considered as a public servant.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was observed by the Division Bench that the post of Noon Meal Organiser was created under a Government Order issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
The case of Ramesh K. Sharma & Another V. Rajasthan Civil Services & Others was relied upon wherein the service of an employee appointed on the basis of an Executive Order was examined. It was held that the appointments could not be treated as temporary because there were no statutory service rules. The Government advertisement prescribed the educational qualifications, age limit, vacancies. Further, the selection procedure was also prescribed which included a written test and interview. Therefore, it was held that administrative orders can prescribe the mode of recruitment in case where there are no statutory rules.
It was further observed by the Division Bench that the post of Noon Meal Organizer is a substantive post under the Tamil Nadu Government. Therefore, the employee would be entitled to have the period of suspension regularized.
It was further held that the criminal cases against the employee had ended in acquittal, or had been quashed. Further, the departmental proceedings had also resulted in a finding that the charges had not been proved. Therefore, the employee was held eligible to subsistence allowance.
With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Counsel for the Appellants : S.I.Muthiah Additional Government Pleader
Counsel for the Respondent : S.Govindan