http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G.MOHAMED AMMENUDEEN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/09/1999

BENCH: R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu

JUDGMENT:

RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     Census  is conducted once in every ten years under the Census  Act, 1948 in the country under the direction of  the Registrar  General  and Census Commissioner of  India.   The Government  of  Tamil  Nadu conducts the  census  operations under  the Directorate of Census.  For the purpose of census work,  personnel are recruited through employment  exchange. After the census work is over their employment would come to an  end  inasmuch  as such employees are taken  on  duty  on temporary  basis.  From 1971 onwards, on each occasion, when on  completion  of  the census work, on the request  of  the Registrar  General and Census Commissioner of India, certain benefits  were  given  to the census workers, such  as,  top priority  for recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistants, Record  Clerks,  Peons,  etc.  and age relaxation  of  three years  and  rule of reservation while  making  appointments. Similar  orders  had been issued on each occasion after  the census  work  was  over  at the instance  of  the  Registrar General  and Census Commissioner of India.  For the  purpose of  census  operations  which  commenced in  the  year  1991 certain  workers,  including respondents, were engaged on  a consolidated  pay to carry out the census work for a  period of  18  months  from  1.2.1991   to  30.6.1992.   After  the completion   of  the  census   work,  their  services   were terminated.  On May 15, 1991, the State Government issued an order  imposing a ban on recruitment of temporary employees, for  a  period of one year from that date, other than  those who  are  sponsored  by  the   Tamil  Nadu  Public   Service Commission  [hereinafter  referred to as the  Commission]. This  ban  was  continued  for an  indefinite  period.   The Registrar  General  and Census Commissioner of India,  by  a letter  sent  on December 26, 1991, requested the  State  of Tamil  Nadu  to  take  appropriate steps  in  absorbing  the temporary  workers employed in the census operations at  the state  level  in its services and in the undertakings  under its  control.   Similar request was made by the Director  of Census  Operations, Madras.  The services of the respondents in  the present case who had been engaged as census  workers were  terminated  or retrenched on June 30,  1992.   Certain concessions were sought to be extended to the respondents in G.O.Ms.Nos.341  and  444 but the concessions extended  under the   earlier  order  were   withdrawn  and  more  stringent conditions were imposed for their absorption.  The resultant position  is  that  there was a ban on  the  recruitment  of temporary   employees   through   employment  exchange   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

recruitment of both temporary and permanent employees had to be  made  only  from the list of persons  sponsored  by  the Commission.   Thus, the temporary employees who were working in Census Department and whose services were terminated also had  to  pass such qualifying examination conducted  by  the Commission.   In  this background, the respondents filed  an application  before  the Tamil Nadu Administrative  Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal] that they had to be absorbed either in the State Government service or in any of  the  undertakings  inasmuch as they had  worked  for  15 months  continuously  and  they sought for  a  direction  to absorb them as Junior Assistants or Typists.  The appellants resisted  the  said petition on the basis that the  Tribunal does  not  have  jurisdiction to entertain  the  application since  the respondents were not employed in any civil  post; that,  in  view of various Government orders indicating  the policy  that  the respondents could not be recruited to  the State  Government  service except on being sponsored by  the Commission.  The Tribunal, however, held that the appellants had  absorbed  the  terminated temporary  employees  of  the Census  Department  in 1971 and 1981 and the  G.O.Ms.Nos.341 dated 13.12.92 and 444 dated 23.12.92 were subsequent to the one   issued  on  15.5.91  imposing   general  ban  on   the recruitment  of temporary employees sponsored by  employment exchange  and, therefore, the subsequent G.O.Ms.  issued for the specific category of employees would exclude the earlier G.O.Ms  and thus the respondents were entitled to absorption in the State Government and directed the State Government to consider  their cases for such absorption within a period of two  months.   Hence this appeal by special leave.   Several contentions  have  been raised before us but in view of  the stand  taken  now  by the appellants, it is  unnecessary  to examine  them.   On March 11, 1999, when the matter came  up before  us,  we heard the learned counsel on both  sides  at length and felt that considering the special features of the case,  it  would be appropriate for the State Government  to frame  a  scheme  to  absorb   the  respondents  and   other employees,  who  were  similarly placed and  who  have  been retrenched.   On the commencement of the census  operations, persons  who  have registered themselves in  the  employment exchange  get  jobs in that Department.  However,  when  the project  is over, their employment would come to an end  and they  are retrenched thereby losing both the employment  and their  position  in  the queue in the  employment  exchange. Bearing  this  aspect in mind, the Government was  asked  to work   out   an   appropriate    scheme.    Now,   Shri   V. Krishnamurthy,  the learned counsel for the appellants,  has brought to our notice that the appellant has issued an order G.O.Ms.No.144  dated 11.8.99 which takes note of the various aspects  to which we have adverted to earlier for absorption of the respondents subject to the following conditions:

     (i) Retrenched employees of the Census Organisation in Tamil Nadu with not less than six months service were placed in  priority  (iii)  list  under Group  III  for  employment assistance  through Employment Exchanges.  (ii) A period  of three  years  was ordered to be excluded in computing  their age  for  appointment through the Tamil Nadu Public  Service Commission  and the Employment Exchanges, provided they  had rendered  temporary  service of at least six months  in  the Census  Organisation  of  this  State.  (iii)  The  rule  of reservation was to be following in making the appointment of retrenched census employees.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

     However,  it  is  brought  to   our  notice  that  the condition  in clause (i) above would impose hardship on  the respondents  if they are to be placed in Group III and  they had  to  be  placed in Group IV, condition  in  clause  (ii) cannot  be  worked out at all because even if the period  of three  years stated therein is excluded the appellants  will not  get any benefit because their services had been put  to an  end  in the year 1992 and over seven years have  elapsed since then and, therefore, they cannot fulfil that condition at  all.   In  the  circumstances,   we  direct  the   State Government  to  modify  the scheme in respect of  these  two conditions.    It  would  be   appropriate  for  the   State Government  to delete these two conditions and all that  may be  insisted  upon is that the retrenched employees  of  the Census  Department  should  be placed in Group  IV  and  the condition  relating  to  the exclusion of three  years  from their  age shall be deleted.  Subject to this  modification, the  scheme  proposed by the State Government may be  worked out so as to absorb the respondents in services of the State Government  or  in any of the Local Authority or  Government undertakings   as  may  be   feasible  as  expeditiously  as possible.   This  appeal  stands  disposed  of  accordingly. Before  parting  with  the case, we must put on  record  our appreciation  for a very reasonable stand taken on behalf of the  appellants  and  the learned counsel appearing  in  the case.