SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Krishnakumar, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government Rural Welfare (E5) Department, Fort St.George and - Appellants
Versus
J.Manikandan and ors. – Respondents
W.A. No. 959 of 2020
Decided On : 16-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.Anandakumar, AGP
For the Respondent: Mrs. Selvi George

The regularisation of temporary employees is a policy decision and cannot be mandated by the court.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Road Roller Drivers - G.O.Ms.No. 126, Rural Welfare (E5) Department, dated 16.04.1997 - The court discussed the entitlement of the respondents for regularisation of their service, the mandate of G.O.Ms.126, and the creation of supernumerary posts. The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, including the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, and concluded that the impugned order directing regularisation is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents, appointed as Road Roller Drivers, sought regularisation based on G.O.No. 126. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the department to regularise their services. The appeal challenged this order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents' appointment did not meet the criteria for regularisation under G.O.Ms.No. 126. It also emphasized that the regularisation of temporary employees is a policy decision and cannot be mandated by the court.

Issues: Entitlement for regularisation under G.O.Ms.No. 126, creation of supernumerary posts, and the regularisation of services employed under non-sanctioned posts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' appointment did not meet the criteria for regularisation under G.O.Ms.No. 126. It also emphasized that the regularisation of temporary employees is a policy decision and cannot be mandated by the court.

Final Decision: The impugned order directing regularisation was set aside, and the writ appeal filed by the State was allowed.

JUDGMENT :

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Appeal is filed Under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 25.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.9073 of 2015.

Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9073 of 2015 dated 25.04.2019, the instant writ appeal has been filed by the Department.

Brief facts:

2.1 The respondents herein were appointed as Road Roller Drivers in the year 2003, 2006 and 2008 at various Panchayat Union. After continuously working for several years, they sought for regularisation of their service based on Government Order in G.O.No. 126 Rural Welfare (E5) Department dated 16.04.1997. As their request was not considered, they approached this Court in W.P.No.20230 of 2012 and sought for directions, directing the respondents therein to regularise their service with effect from the date of their initial appointment. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the respondents/appellants herein to consider the case of the petitioners/respondents herein in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 126, Rural Welfare (E5) Department, dated 16.04.1997, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

2.2 Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents/appellants herein have filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No. 1451 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.11.2014 disposed of the appeal by extending the time to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the 1st appellant herein/Government has passed an order rejecting the petitioners/respondents' herein request of regularization for the reason that they are not having the requisite qualification/eligibility .

2.3. Thereafter, challenging the said rejection order, the respondents herein have filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 9073 of 2015. The learned Single Judge by order dated 25.04.2019, after elaborate discussion of the background of the case, allowed the said writ petition observing that the 1st respondent/1st appellant herein has not chosen to comply with the earlier orders passed by this Court and directed the 1st appellant herein to grant benefits of regularization to the respondents herein, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same, the instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/department.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the G.O.Ms.No. 126, Rural Welfare (E5) Department, dated 16.04.1997 is sanctioned for creating temporary post of road roller drivers in the pay scale of Rs.975-25-1150-30- 1660 and at later point of time the said sanctioned posts of road roller drivers was not revived by the Government, therefore the post of road roller drivers are no more available in Panchayat Unions.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would further submit the respondents herein had worked only for a short period of 1375 days, 247 days, 383 days and 129 days respectively during the period from 2003 to 2013 that too not continuously served, but worked on various spells. The respondents herein have already filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.17014 of 2014 seeking relief of appointment as permanent jeep driver's and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 31.10.2017. The writ appeal in W.A.No. 862 of 2018 filed by the respondents challenging the above order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 20.06.2018. Thereafter, the respondents herein have filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 9073 of 2015, wherein the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.04.2019 has directed the appellants herein to consider the request made by the respondents, which is impugned in the present writ appeal.

5. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants the learned Singe Judge without taking note of the Judgment of the Constitutional Ben

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top