Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
P. Shobitharaj & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Secretary Government of Tamilnadu, Personnel & Administrative Reform Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. No. 4662 of 2018
Decided On : 09-06-2023
Mandamus - Regularisation of Service - G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 04.07.2003 - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 - Summary: The court discussed the regularisation of service of petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 04.07.2003 and the grant of service benefits. The court considered the temporary nature of the petitioners' appointments, the conduct of a special competitive examination for absorption, and the legal provisions governing appointments and regularisation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularisation of their service with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 04.07.2003. They argued that they had been discharging the same function as regular junior assistants and sought regularisation from the date of their initial appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' appointments were purely temporary in nature and did not confer any right to claim preferential treatment for retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment. The court also noted the conduct of a special competitive examination for absorption and held that the petitioners cannot be granted the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the petitioners' appointments, their entitlement to regularisation from the date of their initial appointments, and the conduct of a special competitive examination for absorption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions governing appointments and regularisation, as well as previous judgments, to determine that the petitioners' temporary appointments did not entitle them to retrospective regularisation. The conduct of a special competitive examination for absorption was also a key factor in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court, and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 04.07.2003 and grant all other service benefits to the petitioners by taking into consideration of the service rendered by the petitioners to the Government pursuant to the petitioners representation dated 13.02.2017.)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners with retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made vide G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 04.07.2003 and grant all other service benefits to the petitioners by taking into consideration of the service rendered by the petitioners to the Government pursuant to the petitioners representation dated 13.02.2017.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) On 01.07.2003, the Government servants working in the Secretariat as well as in the District Administration proceeded to strike protesting various decisions taken by the State Government affecting the interests of the government employees. Therefore, the State Government passed orders dismissing the employees, who were on strike, in pursuant to the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 84, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.G) Department, dated 4.7.2003 and decided to recruit temporary Assistants to attend to the work in the Departments of the Secretariat. Similarly, by G.O.Ms. No. 85, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.G) Department, dated 4.7.2003, the Government decided to recruit temporary Junior Assistants in various Districts. Thus, the petitioners who held the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of junior assistants were recruited on the basis of the employment exchange seniority. Thereafter, G.O.Ms. No. 155, dated 19.9.2006 came to be issued, wherein, the State Government has decided to conduct a Special Competitive Examination in Group IV Standard for those temporarily recruited Assistants in the Secretariat and Junior Assistants in the various Districts in supernumerary posts for the purpose of their absorption in service.
(ii) The petitioners appeared in the said examination and their services were regularized only after they succeeded in special competitive exam which was conducted by Tamilnadu Public Service Commission. The petitioners have tendered their service for more than 7 to 8 years under the consolidate wages and are discharging their duty with utmost sincere and to the satisfaction of their higher authority from the date of appointment as junior assistants and thereafter, their employment of service was made as permanent after the special examination. Since the petitioners have performed the duties as compared to that of regular junior assistants, the petitioners seek for regularisation from the date of initial appointment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were engaged and serving the government continuously without any break in service from the date of Initial appointment pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in G.O Ms No:85, dated 04.07.2003. Moreover the duties and responsibilities rendered by the petitioners in consolidated pay and in regular time scale of pay were one and the same. Therefore, the service of the petitioners are to be regularized from the date of their Initial appointments.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from the date of petitioners'' appointments, they have been discharging the same function in the same department as temporary junior assistants, expect the change in nomenclature, there is no other difference in the nature of duties performed by the petitioners as compared to that of regular junior assistants. The petitioners equally qual
Temporary appointments do not confer the right to claim preferential treatment for retrospective regularisation, and the conduct of a special competitive examination for absorption can impact the ent....
Regularization of services of provisional employees should revert to the date of their initial appointment, as established by legal precedents.
The petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment and were entitled to count only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for pension....
The main legal point established is that the appointment of the petitioners was not illegal, and they were eligible for regularisation of their services.
The government servant is entitled to salary and other service benefits attached to the post only from the date of appointment and not prior to the said date of appointment.
The acceptance of a regularization condition precludes the claim for retrospective appointment.
Lengthy service by an employee on ad-hoc basis, when performed against a sanctioned post, must be counted towards seniority and benefits, ensuring equitable treatment in state employment.
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
