1. Appointment against sanctioned post as part-time sweeper — long-term service — termination of services — writ petition seeking regularization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1018
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
The State and Others – Petitioners
Versus
T. Arumugam – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15692 of 2025
Decided On : 16-06-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Balaji Subramanian, Sabarish Subramanian, Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi
For the Petitioners: Balaji Subramanian, Sabarish Subramanian, Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi
The court upheld the High Court's order for regularization of services based on established precedent.
Headnote:The Supreme Court considered the legality of the High Court's order directing the regularization of a respondent-employee's services, which had been terminated after 21 years. The Court referenced the full bench judgment in M. Sivappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, which had not been challenged, and found no merit in the State's appeal. The Court ultimately dismissed the special leave petitions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the legality and validity of the High Court's direction to regularize the services of the respondent-employee. (Para 6 )
3. The employee was appointed against sanctioned posts and served for 21 years; the High Court relied on an unchallenged full bench judgment. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. Regularization is warranted for employees appointed against sanctioned posts who serve for a prolonged period, provided the decision aligns with unchallenged full bench precedents. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed; High Court judgment directing regularization upheld. (Para 11 )
6. Can an employee appointed against a sanctioned post be regularized after long-term service?
Yes, if the employee was appointed against sanctioned posts and served for a prolonged period without demur, the court may uphold a direction for regularization, particularly when based on an unchallenged full bench judgment. (Para 8 , 10 )
7. Does the existence of a pending related matter automatically preclude the regularization of another employee?
No, the court may determine that the specific facts and questions in a petition have no parity with other pending matters, thereby allowing the regularization to stand regardless of the other pending case. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Perused the impugned order.
3. The respondent-employee was appointed against one of the 86 sanctioned posts of part-time sweeper in the year 1997.
4. He moved the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking direction for regularisation.
5. The services of the respondent employee were terminated in the year 2018.
6. The High Court, after considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances as emanating from record and while placing reliance on a full bench Judgment of Madras High Court in the case of M. Sivappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 (2) CTC 1, directed the petitioner State to regularise the services of the respondent. The State of Tamil Nadu has approached this Court by way of this special leave to appeal seeking to question the legality and validity of the judgment dated 20th February, 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
7. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned standing counsel for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.
8. The High Court primarily based its conclusions on the full Bench judgment in the case of M. Sivappa (supra). It is not in dispute that the respondent employee was appointed against one of the 86 posts enumerated in the special Rules for Tamil Nadu basic services . He continuously served the State without a demur for a period of almost 21 years whereafter his services were unceremoniously terminated.
9. We, therefore, feel that the questions involved in these petitions have no parity with the pending matter in the case of Director of School Education vs. Ellammal , SLP (C) No. 4575 of 2022, on which reliance was heavily placed by learned counsel for the State.
10. The full Bench judgment in the case of M. Sivappa (supra) has not been challenged any further which fact was admitted by Mr. Balaji Subramanian, learned AAG, during the course of arguments.
11. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merit leaving the question of law, if any, open.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
