The central legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective regularisation of employment based on the petitioner's appointment against a regular vacancy and continued service, supported by the applicability of a previous court judgment.

The Original Application in O.A.No.8603 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Bus-Stand Watchman by an order dated 10.03.1984 in the second respondent Municipality. His appointment was through Employment Exchange. He was on consolidated pay of Rs.60/-per month. He was promoted as helper in the Electrical Department in the Municipality. While so, he was denied work from 30.11.1992. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5860 of 1992 seeking reinstatement with all benefits. The Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on 09.11.1993 with certain observations. Based on the order of the Tribunal and the order of the first respondent dated 04.07.1994, the petitioner was reinstated as Helper in the time scale of pay. Thereafter, the second respondent passed an order dated 04.03.1997 regularising the service of the petitioner as Helper with effect from 12.08.1994.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.8603 of 1997 (W.P.No.30857 of 2006) praying for a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment in the post of Bus-Stand Watchman with effect from 10.03.1984 with arrears of pay.

4. Heard Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.P.I.Thirumurthi, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent.

5. The petitioner states that since he was appointed in the vacancy caused due to retirement of one Mr.Sadasivanpillai on 30.06.1983, the second respondent ought to have regularly appointed the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. It is also submitted that prior to his appointment by the second respondent by an order dated 10.03.1984, one Mr.V.Manigandan was employed on a temporary basis. Since, the petitioner was recruited through Employment Exchange on a regular basis, the temporary employment of Mr.V.Manigandan came to an end. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the order dated 10.03.1984 in this regard, the said order is extracted here-under:-

(TAMIL)

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the order dated 05.12.1991 regularising the service of Mr.Sadasivanpillai with effect from 01.10.1979, after his retirement on 30.06.1983. The said order is extracted here-under:-

(TAMIL)

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that when he was promoted as Helper in the Electricity Department of the Municipality, by an order dated 04.01.1990 it is categorically stated that he was appointed against a regular vacancy. In this regard, the order dated 04.01.1990 is extracted here-under:-

TAMIL)

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision of this Court dated 18.01.2007 in W.P.No.28263 of 2006. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents and more particularly, the second respondent submits that the petitioner was regularised with effect from 12.08.1994 and that therefore, he could not seek retrospectively regularisation from the date of his employment.

9. I have considered the submissions made on either side.

10. The petitioner was admittedly recruited through Employment Exchange. When he was appointed, another person one Mr.V.Manigandan was temporarily appointed to the post due to necessity. On petitioner being appointed through Employment Exchange, the petitioner took charge of the post. The appointment order dated 10.03.1984 which was extracted above makes it very clear that the petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy. It is also made clear that Mr.Sadasivanpillai, Bus-Stand Watchman, retired from service on 30.06.1983 as above in the order dated 05.12.1991, that was also extracted above. Mr.Sadasivanpillai was employed as Bus-Stand Watchman. It is very clear that the petitioner was appointed in the place of Mr.Sadasivanpillai. The order dated 10.03.1984