Regularization of services of provisional employees should revert to the date of their initial appointment, as established by legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the order bearing letter No.30282/P/2018-1 dated 19.09.2018, quash the same and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms. No.85, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 04.07.2003 and grant service and all other benefits to the petitioners by taking into consideration of the service rendered by them to the Government.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms. No.85, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 04.07.2003 and grant service and all other benefits to the petitioners by taking into consideration of the service rendered by them to the Government.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms. No.85, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 04.07.2003 and grant service and all other benefits to the petitioners by taking into consideration of the service rendered by them to the Government.)

Common Order:

1. When the Government employees had gone on an indefinite strike on 01.07.2003 and 02.07.2003, G.O.(Ms) Nos.84 & 85, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Per. G) Department, dated 04.07.2003 came to be passed for recruitment of 1000 temporary Assistants for Secretariat work and 500 Junior Assistants from each District by creating Supernumerary posts. Accordingly, the petitioners herein along with others, came to be recruited as temporary Junior Assistants on contract basis. The Government in the meantime, took a policy decision based on the representations made by these temporary appointees to appoint them regularly by conducting a Special Competitive Examination in Group – IV Standard for the temporary Assistants / Judicial Assistants. The first respondent herein, had issued orders in G.O. (Ms) No.155, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 19.09.2006, calling upon the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to conduct a Special Competitive Examination for absorption of these temporary appointees, as Junior Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service / Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. TNPSC had accordingly issued a notification dated 06.12.2007 for conduct of the Special Competitive Examination and based on the results, placement orders came to be passed in the year 2012. The petitioners now seek for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment.

2. The learned counsel/Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnyan & others Vs. Limi Niri & others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 791, as well as the decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Council of Medical Research & others Vs. K. Rajalakshmi & another reported in 2005 (1) CTC 488 and submitted that, the petitioners would be entitled to seek for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. The learned counsel/Senior counsel further submitted that since they are not claiming the regular time scale of pay from the date of initial appointment, there will not be any financial implications on the Government.

3. The learned Government Advocate placed reliance on Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and submitted that, when an appointment is made by an agreement, the appointee cannot be regarded as a member of the servi