The court emphasized the principle of non-discrimination and the need to adhere to the policy of regularization without pick and choose, to prevent corruption.

Headnote:
Regularization - Services - The court directed the respondents to regularize the appellants' services with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service, emphasizing that the policy of regularization had been violated in many cases and there cannot be any pick and choose policy.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants sought regularization of their services after completing 10 years of service, citing orders passed for similarly situated persons. The respondents argued that all regularization orders were illegal due to a decision to discontinue the appointment to the post of Sweepers by the State.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that many similarly situated persons had been granted regularization despite the State's decision to discontinue the appointment. It concluded that there was no justification for discriminating against the appellants and directed the respondents to grant regularization to them with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service.
Issues: Regularization of services, violation of policy, discrimination
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the policy of regularization had been violated in many cases and there cannot be any pick and choose policy, as it would lead to corruption.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant regularization to the appellants with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service. Consequential benefits were to be disbursed within a specified timeframe, with the appellants entitled to interest at the rate of 12% if the disbursement was delayed.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants have prayed for regularization of their services with effect from the date they completed 10 years of service. Main reliance is placed on the orders passed by the respondents in the case of similarly situated persons.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that all the regularization orders passed in the case of those pointed out by the appellants are illegal since the State, in principle, had decided to discontinue the appointment to the post of Sweepers by order dated 10.12.1997. However, the fact remains that after the said order also, many similarly situated persons have been granted regularization with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service.

4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification in discriminating the appellants herein. The policy had been violated in many cases. There cannot be any pick and choose policy; it would certainly lead to corruption. Hence, the appeals are allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant similar treatment to the appellants herein as well and grant regularization to them with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of service.

5. The needful shall be done within two months. Consequential benefits, if any, shall be disbursed within another one month.

6. It is made clear that in case the disbursement is not done within the period mentioned above, the appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% and the officials responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the same.

No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document