The main legal point established is that the services of an employee can be deemed regularised based on court orders and the principle of regularisation of irregular appointees with over 10 years of service.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Na.Ka.No.225/2022/Tho.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sa dated 21.01.2023 by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent nos.1 to 3 to consider the petitioner''s application dated 09.12.2022 for compassionate appointment in the third respondent society, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.)

By consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner is the son of Late A. Kanniyappan, who was appointed as a Ration Shop Packer on 10.09.1982 in the third respondent''s Society. He was promoted as a Ration Shop Salesman in Thellar Village and while in service, he died on 24.09.2021 after putting 39 years of service. The petitioner''s request for compassionate appointment through his application dated 09.12.2022 has been rejected by the second respondent through the order dated 21.01.2023, on the ground that the services of his father was not regularised before his death and therefore, he cannot claim for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons like that of his father, had the benefit of an order of this Court passed in the case of A. Sivakumar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-op. & Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others reported in CDJ 2021 MHC 425, wherein the services of all the petitioners therein were directed to be regularised and therefore, the petitioner''s father''s services also is deemed to have been ''regularised'' and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner''s father was not sponsored through Employment Exchange at the time of his original appointment. Moreover, his services also were not regularised till his date of death and hence not deemed to be a ''regular employee'' of the Society. Since the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment can be extended only to the legal heirs of the regular employees, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the second respondent.

5. The petitioner''s father was initially engaged on daily wages basis on 10.09.1982. When he was promoted as a Salesman in the Public Distribution System on 05.04.1988, he was sanctioned with the regular time scale of pay. It is not in dispute that the petitioner''s appointment was on the sanctioned vacancy and that he was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

6. When similarly placed Salesmen or Packers in the Cooperative Societies, Marketing Societies and Co-operative Wholesale Stores were appointed on daily wages basis and thereafter brought in regular time scale of pay, approached this Court in the case of A. Sivakumar (supra), seeking for regularisation of their services, this Court by its order dated 19.02.2021, directed the official respondents to regularise their services and further rendered a finding stating that the benefit of regularisation, will also be extended to such employee, who had not approached the Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“37. In view of the above discussion, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

a. All those Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case may be who have at the time of their appointment, fulfilled their educational qualification, who have been appointed in a sanctioned post within the cadre strength, and are in regular scale of pay, are declared to have satisfied the substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule 149(1) of the Rules;

b. The appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, will only make the appointments irregular and not illegal;