Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND ANR. – Appellants
Versus
A. SINGAMUTHU – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3770 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17702 of 2014]
Decided On : 07-03-2017
(2014) 4 SCC 769; (2011) 2 SCC 429 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The respondent herein was appointed as a part-time Masalchi through Employment Exchange on 01.04.1989 and continued to work there and as part- time Masalchi attended the menial work in the appellant-department at District Registrar Office, Trichy in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The respondent completed ten years of service as part-time Masalchi on 31.03.1999.
The respondent approached the High Court praying for regularization of his service on completion of ten years of service from the date of his appointment and to appoint him as Watchman in the regular time scale. The Single Judge directed the Inspector General of Registration to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 and grant regularization to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits.
The appellant-department filed writ appeal contending that G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to the daily wage full-time employees and not applicable to the respondent as the respondent was only a part-time Masalchi.
During the pendency of the Writ Appeal vide proceedings No.10425/A1/2012 dated 02.07.2012, the District Registrar appointed the respondent and four others as a full-time employees in the post of Watchman by regularizing them and the services of respondent has been placed at Sub-Registrar, Uraiyur, Trichy.
The Writ Appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent being part time employee is not entitled to regularisation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that part-time employees are not entitled to regularization when orders specify regularization only for full-time daily wage employees. (!) - G.O. Ms. No. 22 (2006) is applicable to full-time daily wage employees; part-time Masalchis are not covered, per G.O. Ms. No. 74 (2013) and related explanations. (!) (!) - The High Court’s direction to grant regularization from the date of completion of ten years of service to the respondent was reversed; monetary benefits are to be conferred from the date of the government order, not retroactively. (!) (!) (!) - Relaxation of rules and retrospective regularization could incur substantial financial implications for the State and affect several similarly situated employees. (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that part-time or casual employment does not create a right to regularization, and courts should avoid back-door entries or regularization contrary to rules. (!) (!) (!) - G.O. No. 84 (2012) clarified that G.O. No. 22 applies only to full-time daily wagers as of 01.01.2006, not to part-time employees. (!) (!) - The respondent, a part-time Masalchi, was regularized only insofar as a later government order permitted, with monetary benefits from the date of that order. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI J.
Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 04.07.2012 dismissing the Writ Appeal No.1209 of 2012 thereby affirming the order of the learned Single Judge directing to grant regularization to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits.
3. The respondent herein was appointed as a part-time Masalchi through Employment Exchange on 01.04.1989 and continued to work there and as part- time Masalchi attended the menial work in the appellant-department at District Registrar Office, Trichy in the State of Tamil Nadu.The respondent completed ten years of service as part-time Masalchi on 31.03.1999. In G.O. Ms. No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, the State Government of Tamil Nadu directed that the services of the fulltime daily wages employees working in all Government Departments, who have rendered ten years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularized by appointing them in the time scale pay of the post concerned subject to their being otherwise qualified for the post. In furtherance to the above Government Order, G.O. (D) No.659 Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Dept. dated 28.12.2006 was issued whereby the Government directed to fill vacancies in various categories in the Registration Department existing against the Direct Recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Employment Exchange, Commissioner of Technical Education and on Compassionate Grounds, etc. various categories were considered and, inter alia, among them 308 posts of watchman were required to be filled.
4. The respondent herein approached the High Court by filing W.P. No.26702 of 2010 praying for regularization of his service on completion of ten years of service from the date of his appointment and to appoint him as Watchman in the regular time scale. Vide order dated 26.11.2010, the learned Single Judge directed the Inspector General of Registration to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 and grant regularization to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-department filed writ appeal contending that G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to the daily wage full-time employees and not applicable to the respondent as the respondent was only a part-time Masalchi. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal vide proceedings No.10425/A1/2012 dated 02.07.2012, the District Registrar appointed the respondent and four others as a full-time employees in the post of Watchman by regularizing them and the services of respondent has been placed at Sub-Registrar, Uraiyur, Trichy. The Writ Appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal contending that the High Court has erred in directing regularization of the service of the respondent herein from the date of completion of ten years of his service with salary and other benefits.
6. Mr. Subramanium Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order by contending that there is no provision in the relevant Rules and Government Orders to regularise the service of temporarily appointed part-time Masalchis on completion of ten years of service or otherwise. With regard to G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006, the learned senior counsel Mr. Subramonium Prasad argued that respondent being a part-time Masalchi who works only for two-three hours per day does not qualify for the benefit, as the Government Order directed regularisation of services of full-time daily wage employees only. The counsel also contended that the High Court failed to note that many full-time Masalchis serving in various departments of the State Government were regularised only as a one-time scheme to bring them under the time s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
