The power of relaxation should be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, and regularization and permanent absorption should only be made if the appointments are made in accordance with the service rules in force.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected in G.O.Ms.No.58, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated 21.05.2008 passed by the first respondent and quash the same in respect of the regularisation of the petitioner from the date of issuance of the Government order insofar as the petitioner is concerned and directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner either from the date of initial appointment (or) from the date of the actual vacancy arose (or) from the date of completion of 10 years of service as given to others with all benefits.)

Common Order

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.58, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated 21.05.2008.

2. The petitioners were engaged as daily wage Watchmen through employment exchange in the department of labour. Admittedly, they were continuing as daily wage employees for more than 10 years and pursuant to the Government orders issued during the relevant point of time, proposals were submitted to regularize the services of the petitioners. Considering the proposal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.58, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated 21.05.2008 regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of the Government order i.e. 21.05.2008.

3. A perusal of the Government order reveals that rules relating to age and reservation were relaxed in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of grant of regularization. Thus, the initial appointment of the petitioners was irregular and not in accordance with the service rules in force.

4. In spite of the fact that the initial appointment of the petitioners was irregular and not in accordance with the rules in force, the Government regularized the services in favour of the petitioners considering the fact that they were continuing as daily wage employees for more than ten years. Thus, the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption itself was a concession extended by the Government, more so, by relaxing the relevant rules in force.

5. The question arises for consideration is whether relaxation of rules can be granted in favour of an individual in a routine manner.

6. The power of relaxation is conferred on the Government only for a limited purpose to mitigate the extraordinary circumstances or in case of gross injustice. The power of relaxation cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The power of relaxation is an exception to be exercised judiciously so as to ensure that the injustice, if any, crept in is rectified.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the similarly placed persons were granted the benefit of retrospective regularization with all benefits. When the benefit of retrospective regularization on completion of ten years has been granted to the other similarly placed persons, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners and hence, the action of the respondents are discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. No doubt, there is force in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. However, the Courts are bound to consider the implications and the principles settled in the matter of regularization and permanent absorption. It is not as if the Courts can mechanically follow certain orders irrespective of the facts and circumstances involved in a particular case.

9. In the present case, the writ petitions itself have been filed after a lapse of about six years from the date of passing of the order. The impugned Government order was passed in the year 2008 and the writ petitions have been filed in the year 2014 after a lapse of six years. Thus, these petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of latches.

10. Regarding regularization and permanent absorption, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme