Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(Mad) 42

1High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
Indian Council of Medical Research, represented by its Director General, P.O.No. 4508, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110 029 and others
Versus
K. Rajalakshmi, Plot No.40, Jagadambigai Street, Thiruvalluvlleswarar Nagar, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar West, Chennai and another
W.Ps. Nos. 7094 of 2001 and 488 of 2002 and W.M.Ps. Nos. 10177 of 2001, 35358 of 2001, 770 of 2002 and 18165 of 2004
Decided on : 10-01-2005

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K. Kumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel assailed by Mr. M. Dhandapani Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for Petitioners. Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for T. Ramkumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

A temporary post held for an extended period takes the character of a permanent post, and the regularisation of services should be based on the date of initial appointment, not the date of filing a Writ Petition.

Headnote:
Regularisation - Service - 1.4.1975 - [The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Constitution of India, 1950] - The court discussed the regularisation of services of the first respondent, emphasizing the nature of the job, the objectives of the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, and the length of service. It highlighted the legal principle that a temporary post held for an extended period takes the character of a permanent post and cited relevant case law to support the decision to regularise the services of the first respondent from the date of her initial appointment.
Fact of the Case:

The first respondent was appointed as a Research Assistant on 1.4.1975 and sought regularisation of her services, which was initially directed from the date of filing the Writ Petition. The court considered the nature of the job, the objectives of the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, and the length of service.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the services of the first respondent should be regularised from the date of her initial appointment, i.e., 1.4.1975, emphasizing the nature of the job, the objectives of the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, and the length of service.
Issues: Regularisation of services, nature of the job, length of service, date of effect of regularisation
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a temporary post held for an extended period takes the character of a permanent post and regularised the services of the first respondent from the date of her initial appointment, citing relevant case law and emphasizing the nature of the job, the objectives of the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, and the length of service.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition No.7094 of 2001 was dismissed, and the Writ Petition No. 488 of 2002 was allowed. The petitioners were directed to regularise the services of the first respondent with effect from 1.4.1975 with all monetary and service benefits. No costs were awarded.

Judgment :-

S.K. Krishnan, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2000 passed in T.A.No.2/2000 by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, while the respondents therein, have filed a Writ Petition No.7094 of 2001 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.11.2000, in T.A.No.2 of 2000 and quash the same, the applicant therein has filed a Writ Petition No.488 of 2002 for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the above said order in respect of giving effect to regularise the service of the petitioner in W.P.No.488 of 2002 and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1975 when the petitioner joined the service of the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau with all consequential benefits.

2. Since the survival of the petition in W.P.No.488 of 2002 is solely based on the nature of the disposal of the petition in W.P.No.7094 of 2001, first we deal with the Writ Petition No.7094 of 2001 and for the sake of convenience, we call the parties as arrayed in W.P.No.7094 of 2001.

3. The facts, leading to the filing of these petitions, are as follows:

4. The first respondent was appointed as a Research Assistant on 1.4.1975 by the first petitioner and she joined duty in the Tamil Nadu unit of National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (hereinafter called as NNMB), which is a project of the first petitioner. The NNMB has been functioning in Tamil Nadu since 1972. The first respondent is a post graduate degree holder in Home Science and Sociology. Even though, it is stated in her appointment order that she would be on probation for six months and she completed the same on 30.9.1975, the same has not been declared. While so, on 10.8.1982, the first respondent and five others were promoted as Assistant Research Officer.

5. The grievance of the first respondent is that even though she has been working in the NNMB without any break, her services were not regularised by the first petitioner, despite her repeated representations, dated 23.9.1987, 14.6.1990 and 27.3.1995. Since, the same were not considered by the petitioners, finding no other alternative, the first respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No. No. 2757 of 1998 before this Court, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, where it was numbered as T.A.No.2 of 2000.

6. Considering the fact that the first respondent has been working for more than 25 years, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the services of the first respondent has to be regularised from the date of filing of the Writ Petition, i.e. from 25.2.1998.

7. Aggrieved by the same, both the petitioners and the first respondent are before us as stated above.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel would contend that the first respondent is not entitled for regularisation since she has been appointed only on temporary basis and her post has been renewed every year.

10. It is further contended that since the project was created initially on yearly renewable basis, the periodical promotion to the staff was not feasible of compliance as even the grant-in-aid for the units was barely enough to meet the essential expenditure of the units.

11. Further, it is contended that since the post being held by the first respondent is purely a temporary one, she is not entitled for regularisation and therefore, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.

12. Per contra , the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that even though the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the facts and circumstances of the case and various decisions of the Supreme Court and concluded that the services of the first respondent has to be regularised, it directed the respondents to regularise the services of the first respondent with effect from 25.2.1998, i.e. from the date of filing of the Writ Petition, and not from 1.4.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document