SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 2992

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, V.M. VELUMANI, JJ.
The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
S. Bagavathy - Respondent
W.A. (MD) No. 1219 of 2016, C.M.P. (MD) No. 8055 of 2016
Decided On : 16-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Parekhkumar.

Part-time employees are not entitled to regularisation and cannot claim parity with regular employees.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Part-time Employees - G.O. (Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, G.O. (Ms) No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, 10.10.1988 - 2014 (4) SCC 769, 2014 (4) LW 657 - The court discussed the applicability of G.O. (Ms) No.22 to part-time employees and the legal principles regarding regularisation of part-time employees. The court relied on the judgments to conclude that part-time employees are not entitled to regularisation and cannot claim parity with regular employees. It held that G.O. (Ms) No.22 is applicable only to full-time daily-wage employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. The court set aside the order allowing the writ petition based on G.O. (Ms) No.22 and allowed the writ appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent sought regularisation as a Sweeper or Scavenger based on the orders issued by the State Government. The appellants contended that the Government Order for regularisation is not applicable to part-time employees.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent is not entitled to regularisation as per G.O. (Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, and set aside the order allowing the writ petition.

Issues: The issue was whether part-time employees, like the respondent, are entitled to regularisation as per G.O. (Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in 2014 (4) SCC 769 and 2014 (4) LW 657 to conclude that part-time employees are not entitled to regularisation and cannot claim parity with regular employees.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order allowing the writ petition and allowed the writ appeal.

JUDGMENT :

V.M. VELUMANI, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 26.06.2013, made in W.P. (MD) No.7886 of 2013.

2. The respondent filed above Writ Petition seeking a direction to the appellants to appoint her in regular time scale either as Sweeper or Scavenger as per the orders issued by the State Government and regularise her service from the date of her initial appointment.

3. According to the respondent, she was selected and appointed as Scavenger through Employment Exchange on consolidated pay on 03.09.1989. She is working as part-time Sweeper from the year 1989 in the Office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mandapam Camp.

4. The first appellant passed G.O. (Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, to regularise the service of the employees, who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. The respondent is working as Sweeper and therefore, the ban imposed by the Government is not applicable to her. Similarly placed employees were brought on regular time scale of pay as per the orders of this Court. The service of the respondent was not regularised. Therefore, the respondent filed the above writ petition for the relief stated supra.

5. The appellants contended that the respondent was appointed as part- time employee and G.O. (Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, is not applicable to part-time employees. The part-time employees are paid from contingent fund. The benefit conferred in G.O. (Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, is applicable only to full-time daily-wage employees appointed against the sanctioned vacancies and not applicable to the employees paid from contingent fund or on consolidated pay.

6. The learned Judge referring to the earlier orders passed by this Court in writ petitions and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court passed in writ appeals, vide order dated 26.06.2013, allowed the writ petition.

7. Against the said order, dated 26.06.2013, present appeal has been filed.

8. Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that G.O.(Ms)No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, was passed by the first appellant only to regularise the services of daily-wage employees, who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. The said Government Order is not applicable to part-time employees or employees, who are paid consolidated wages. The daily-wage employees are working more hours than the part- time employees. This position was clarified by the Government, vide G.O. (Ms) No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, where it has been categorically stated that only daily-wage employees, who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 could be regularised in the regular vacancies. It is made clear that the educational qualification and mode of recruitment cannot be relaxed. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that some of the employees pressurized the Government through contempt petitions and obtained orders of regularisation.

9. In support of his submissions, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on the following Judgments:

(i) 2014 (4) SCC 769 [Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R. Govindaswamy and others], wherein in paragraphs 7 and 8, it has been held as follows:

“7. In Union of India vs. A.S. Pillai, 2010 (13) SCC 448, this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the Court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top