Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Thirumoorthy & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
WP. Nos. 1614 & 1615 of 2014
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Regularisation - Service Regularisation - G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.02.2006 - G.O.Ms.No.71 M.A. & W.S. Department, dated 05.05.1998 - Article 226 - 10.11.1999 - 26.05.2006
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Badli Sanitary worker, sought regularisation and time scale of pay from the date of his initial appointment in 1986. The order granting regular time scale of pay with effect from 23.02.2006 was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the benefit of regularisation and time scale of pay was granted by way of concession and cannot be extended retrospectively, as it would cause financial implications to the State Exchequer. The writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of laches, as it was filed after a lapse of about 8 years from the date of the impugned order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petitioner was entitled to regularisation and time scale of pay from the date of his initial appointment in 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right and should be granted strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. The court also considered the financial implications to the State Exchequer and the delay in filing the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach the Competent Authorities after the disposal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to third respondent's proceedings Na.Ka.No.H1/11539/99/H1 dated 26.05.2006 and quash the same in so far as regularisation of the service of the petitioner is concerned from the date of order and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularise the service of the petitioner in time scale of pay after completion of one year service from the date of his appointment made pursuant to and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.71 M.A. & W.S. Department, dated 05.05.1998 with all attendant benefits.)
1. The order granting regular time scale of pay to the writ petitioner with effect from 23.02.2006 in proceedings dated 26.05.2006, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Badli Sanitary worker in the third respondent-Municipality in the year 1986 through Employment Exchange. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as consolidated pay employee as per G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 05.05.1998. The petitioner was continued in service for more than 10 years. Though the petitioner is eligible for regularisation, it was not granted and the time scale was also denied. In the meantime, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.02.2006 to regularise the services of the employees who had worked on the consolidated pay and NMR on daily wages in Municipalities, Corporation and Grade-III Municipalities. The third respondent in proceedings dated 26.05.2006, regularised the services of the writ petitioner and brought the writ petitioner in regular time scale of pay from the date of order on 26.05.2006. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as temporary employee on 10.11.1999. Therefore, he is entitled to be regularised from the date of initial appointment. However, the benefit of regularisation and regular time scale of pay was granted to the petitioner only with effect from 23.02.2006, which is not in accordance with law.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 objected the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the temporary employees who were not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force, are not eligible for regularisation. The Government took a decision by taking a sympathetic view and granted the benefit of regularisation to all the employees who were temporarily appointed and working for more than 10 years and therefore, such a concession cannot be granted with retrospective effect, which would cause financial implication to the State Exchequer.
5. Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The benefit of regularisation is to be granted strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. Persons appointed irregularly or illegally are not entitled for the benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption.
6. During the relevant period of time, the Government had taken a decision and granted the benefit of regularisation considering the length of service rendered by those temporary employees who were not appointed in accordance with the Rules in force. Therefore, the concession extended to those employees cannot be further extended for the purpose of granting retrospective regularisation from the date of initial appointment. The Government itself has extended the benefit of regularisation in respect of those temporary employees on completion of their 10 years of service and regular time scale of pay was granted from the date of issuance of Government Order in force. In view of the fact that the benefit of regularisation and time scale of pay was granted by way of concession, the Court cannot
AI
Regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of service rules in force, and the principles for grant of regularization as settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Cou....
Employees are entitled to regularization on completion of three years of service from their date of initial engagement, as per relevant government orders and previous court decisions.
Retrospective regularization cannot be granted if the initial appointments were not made in a regular time scale of pay in a sanctioned post.
The main legal point established is that employees should be regularized with effect from the completion of three years of consolidated pay, as per the relevant Government Orders and previous judgmen....
The rights of the employees are to be decided only after the disposal of the pending appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts.
Regularization of services of provisional employees should revert to the date of their initial appointment, as established by legal precedents.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
