IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation of service must be prospective to avoid affecting the seniority of regularly appointed employees, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the State that the petitioners be given regularisation with retrospective date i.e. from initial date of appointment 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed in Special Recruitment Drive initiated by the Collector on the post of Chainman on daily wages basis on 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 and their services were not regularised leading to filing of Writ Petition (S) No.3177/2005 before this Court in which by order dated 28.08.2006, this Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and pursuant thereto, the petitioners were regularised on the post of Chainman w.e.f. 22.11.2007, which they accepted without demur and protest and thereafter after delay of six years, on 15.04.2013 this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the regularisation granted on 22.11.2007 be directed to be granted from retrospective date i.e. from the date of their initial appointment i.e. on 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 respectively.

3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State that the petitioners were already been regularised on the post of Chainman on 22.11.2007 and there is delay of six years in filing this writ petition, which the petitioners have failed to explain and they were earlier appointed on daily wages, not appointed on sanctioned post in accordance with rules and in that view of above-stated facts, the petitioners are not entitled for retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. on 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 and, as such, petitioners have no case for retrospective regularisation.

4. Ms. Juhi Anguria, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of regularisation with retrospective effect is recurring cause of action and regularisation ought to have granted with retrospective effect from 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993 and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that the petitioners were not appointed on sanctioned posts in accordance with rules and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled for retrospective regularisation and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis by the Collector as Chainman under the Special Recruitment Drive and payments were made on contingency basis and their services were not regularised leading to filing of the writ petition before this Court, in which, this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Umadevi (supra) and accordingly they were regularised on 22.11.2007 by the order of competent authority.

8. Now, the petitioners are claiming retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 09.06.1993 & 30.06.1993. The ordinary meaning of regularisation is “to make regular” and the effect of such regularisation would depend on the object or purpose for which the regularisation is made or the stage at which it is made. Once regularised, the procedural infirmities which attended the appointment are cured.

9. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 690 and it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinary be prospective so that seniorit