The central legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employees can be entitled to regularization under specific schemes and recruitment rules, and their services must not be exploited over time without granting them permanent status.

R. Mahadevan, J.

These Writ Petitions have been filed against the common order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A Nos.1101 to 1104 of 2011.

2. The applicants in the Original Applications are the first respondents in the respective Writ Petitions. The Original Applications were filed invariably seeking reinstatement as part time contingent chowkidar (night watchman) at Thiruparankundram Subordinate Office, Thathaneri Subordinate Office, K.Pudur L.S.G. Subordinate Office and Thirumangalam Subordinate Office respectively and for a consequential direction to absorb the applicants as Watchmen with all service benefits. For the sake of convenience, the first respondents shall be referred as applicants and the Writ Petitioners as petitioners.

3. The applicants were employed as Contingent Night Watchmen and had put in more than 8 years of continuous service. They also claimed to have worked more than 12 hours every day. As their service was terminated, they had filed the applications. In reply, the petitioners contended that the applicants were appointed purely on temporary basis and the said fact was well known to the applicants. Since there was no Recruitment Rules at the relevant time, the applicants were directly recruited, and as per the Rules no part time employee should be engaged and paid for more than 5 hours a day. Based on the policy decision to abolish all contingent posts, the services of the applicants have been terminated.

4. After considering the rival claims, the Original Applications were allowed by the Tribunal below reinstating the applicants with a direction to the petitioners herein to absorb them as Night Watchmen. However, on the basis of the principle “No work, No pay”, the applicants were held not eligible for any benefits during the period they were not in service. Aggrieved, the Writ Petitions have been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a temporary employee does not have any right to seek absorption. He also contended that based on the policy decision of the Government, Group 'D' posts have been upgraded to Group 'C' posts and the Group 'D' Recruitment Rules have also become redundant and therefore, the applicants’ are not entitled to any relief. Further, the applicants were only paid for 5 Hours and therefore, even if they had over worked, the same cannot be considered and therefore by any stretch of imagination, the applicants cannot be considered to be eligible for regularization referring to Rule 336 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-I. He contented that since the applicants were not appointed in any sanctioned posts, they cannot seek reguliarisation. By placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 11 SCC 448 [MAN SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI and OTHERS] the learned counsel argued that regularization of a person appointed temporarily is impermissible and that even preferential treatment cannot be given.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent has argued that there is no perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal below has rightly applied the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi’s case, followed by M.L.Kesari’s case. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon the recent Hon'ble Apex Court judgment reported in (2013) 5 SUPREME 718) [NIHAL SINGH & OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS] and 2007 (3) CTC 672 [V.RADHAKRISHNAN & OTHES vs. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH, CHENNAI & OTHERS] and contended that the State cannot be permitted to take heinous defences like no sanctioned posts, the applicants were only engaged for 5 hours, etc., and therefore sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

7. The applicants in all the Writ Petitions were engaged as Night Chowkidars. There is no dispute regarding their engagement and disengagement, except with regard to M.Abraham. According to him, he has been in servic