Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
The Special Officer, The Vellore – Appellant
Versus
E. Dhanasekar & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 542 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 16-06-2023
Regularization - Cooperative Societies - G.O.Ms.No.75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MP II) Department dated 21.04.1998 - G.O.(2D)No.137, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP.II) Department dated 28.09.2007 - [G.O.Ms.No.75, G.O.(2D)No.137] - The court discussed the legality of the appointment and regularization of the writ petitioners as per the government orders. It considered the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the Permanency Act, 1981, and relevant case laws to determine the legality and sustainability of the claim for monetary benefits and regularization of services.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners were appointed as Technical Casual Labourers and sought regularization of their services. The government orders G.O.Ms.No.75 and G.O.(2D)No.137 were issued for regularization, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the writ petitioners was illegal and their claim for monetary benefits from the date of their initial appointment based on G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 21.04.1998 was legally unsustainable. It held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to regularization as per the relevant legal provisions and case laws.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the appointment and regularization of the writ petitioners, their entitlement to monetary benefits, and the applicability of government orders G.O.Ms.No.75 and G.O.(2D)No.137.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the Permanency Act, 1981, and relevant case laws including A.Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others and State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Others to establish that the appointment made in violation of statutory provisions and the lack of sanctioned posts cannot be regularized. It emphasized that regularization cannot be a mode of recruitment and that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the order of the Writ Court dated 16.06.2014 in W.P.No.2358 of 2005. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
D. Krishnakumar, J.
1.The third respondent in the writ petition, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2014 passed in W.P.No.2358 of 2005, in and by which learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order passed by the respondents 2 and 3 therein and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioners / respondents 2 to 7 herein in their respective cadres from the respective date of their appointment with service and other attendant benefits.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:
2.1. The writ petitioners/respondents 2 to 7 were sponsored by the Employment Exchange during 1995 for appointment to the post of Technical Casual Labourers in the appellant Federation and they were duly recruited on possessing necessary qualifications prescribed for the post and they were continuously discharging their duties as Data Entry Operator / Typist / Fitter / Electricians on daily wages and they were not given any other service benefits, except payment of Bonus, EPF contribution deducted from their salary and supply of uniforms. Since they continuously serving for number of years, they submitted repeated representations requesting the authorities to regularize their services.
2.2. In pursuance of the same, G.O.Ms.No.75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MP II) Department dated 21.04.1998 came to be passed regularizing the services of 46 technical persons and 64 casual labourers, who were recruited through employment exchange and completed 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, with effect from the date of their initial appointment in their respective cadres. The petitioners, who were appointed in Technical Casual Labourers and also covered under Technical persons, have made representations to the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MP II) Department dated 21.04.1998 and to regularize their services on technical side.
2.3. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has issued an Express Memo dated 21.12.2004 stating that the appointment of the writ petitioners/respondents 2 to 7 is illegal and their request for regularization of their services could not be complied with. The second respondent, in pursuance of the express memo passed by the third respondent, has passed an order refusing to regularize the services of the writ petitioners in regular cadre. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 to 7 herein have filed the writ petition.
2.4. During the pendency of the writ petition, G.O.(2D)No.137, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP.II) Department dated 28.09.2007 relating to regularization of casual labourers, came to be passed, in and by which the petitioners were regularized in the post of Junior Factory Assistant, which is an unskilled post. The writ petitioners joined the post of Junior Factory Assistant on 16.10.2007, without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition and they were subsequently posted as Senior Factory Assistant on 11.03.2008.
2.5. The third respondent/appellant herein had filed a counter affidavit stating that during the inspection conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, it was pointed out that the appointment of 46 Technical Persons and 64 Casual Labourers (Both Technical and Non-Technical) as illegal appointment. On the proposal sent to the Government by the Commission of MP & DD, Chennai, the Government issued orders to regularize these 46 Technical persons and 64 Casual Labourers, vide G.O.Ms.No.75, A.II & F (MP.II) Department dated 21.04.1998 and accordingly, the services of 46 Technical persons have already been regularized in the then existing vacancies.
3. The learned Single Judge, after elaborately considering the submissions made, has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and also directed the respondents to regularize the services of the writ peti
Regularization of illegal appointments and entitlement to monetary benefits must be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions, relevant case laws, and government orders. Part-time employ....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Regularization of daily-wage or casual employees is not an automatic right upon completing 240 days of service. It remains contingent upon the availability of sanctioned posts and adherence to govern....
The regularization of muster roll workers must comply with established policies and legal standards, and irregular appointments cannot be regularized without following due process as mandated by the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for regularization of services is contingent upon the nature of engagement and possession of required qualifications for regul....
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.
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
