The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for equal treatment and re-examination of employment regularization issues in light of similar cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in R.CB1/840/2016 dated 10.05.2016 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to forward the papers to Government, so as to enable the Government to pass such order giving regularisation retrospectively from the date of initial date of appointment.)

1.The writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus seeking interference with an order of the second respondent Director of Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare, Chennai, dated 10.05.2016 in R.CB1/840/2016 and to consequently direct the said respondent to forward the records to the Government to enable the Government to pass orders granting regularization to the petitioners retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment.

2. The writ petition has been filed by 12 separate petitioners. In the affidavit filed, it is stated that they all have been appointed as Cooks in the Government Backward Class Welfare Girls Hostel at various places in Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur Districts. The respective dates of appointments were also different, but they ranged from the year 1997 to 2000. They had been appointed through Employment Exchange on consolidated pay and they also joined duty. It must also be mentioned that composite Chengalpet District underwent bifurcation and Thiruvallur and Kancheepuram districts were formed. There were similarly placed persons and their services have been regularised from their initial date of appointment in those Districts.

3. The petitioners herein had then given an application seeking to regularize their appointment and that representation was considered. Their services were regularized w.e.f.20.09.2007. This order was actually passed only consequent to an earlier direction of this Court dated 22.01.2016, whereby a mandamus was sought seeking regularization consequent to representation given by the petitioners herein. An order was passed granting regularization of service only from 20.09.2007 and not retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment. That order has been put to challenge in this writ petition.

4. The reason given by the respondents for regularization of their service only from 20.09.2007 is as follows.

“2. Due to the financial crises that aroused during the year 1990, the Government had taken a policy decision to appoint cooks/Assistant Cooks in BC/MBC/DNC hostels on consolidated basis. However, the Government, on humanitarian ground, had considered the representations of BC/MBC hostel employees'' associations and further brought the services of all the Cooks/Assistant Cooks, who were working in BC/MBC/DNC welfare hostels, from consolidated pay into regular time scale vide G.O.85, BC, MBC and MW Department dated 20.09.2007 and too regulrized their services from the date of issue of order.

3. Hence, it is hereby informed that your request of regularizing your service on retrospectively i.e. From date of your initial appointment could not be considered at this moment owing to the policy of the Government as well as other rules in force.”

5. It is thus seen that the only reason was financial crisis that had arisen in the year 1990, which forced the Government to take a policy decision to appoint Cooks/Assistant Cooks only on temporary basis on consolidated pay. It had also been stated in the aforementioned extract that regularization could not be considered at that particular moment. This order dated 10.05.2016 is impugned in this writ petition.

6. On the side of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed, in which it had been stated that the representation given by the petitioners has been considered and their services had been regularized w.e.f.20.09.2007. It had also been stated that they have not been appointed on regular post and that the