Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
M.R. Ramesh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Trichy - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 18883 of 2018
Decided On : 04-01-2024
Regularization - Technical Assistant - G.O.Ms.No.125, G.O.Ms.No.187, G.O.Ms.No.21, G.O.(D)No.274, G.O.(D)No.520 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.125, G.O.Ms.No.187, G.O.Ms.No.21, G.O.(D)No.274, and G.O.(D)No.520, which govern the regularization of services of employees and the appointment of Technical Assistants. The court emphasized the importance of following the rules and regulations in the appointment and regularization process, and highlighted that 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.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularization of their services as Technical Assistants with effect from 01.01.2009 and consequential benefits. The respondent appointed the petitioners as Technical Assistants, but their service was not regularized from the date of filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no positive direction to regularize the petitioners from the date of availability of vacancy and that the respondent had rightly regularized the petitioners as Technical Assistants. The court dismissed the writ petition with a direction, stating that the government may consider regularization to the said post from the date of G.O. i.e., 10.10.2013 rather than from 04.11.2015.
Issues: The main issue was the regularization of the petitioners' services as Technical Assistants and the entitlement to salary and service benefits from the date of appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 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 court also emphasized the importance of following the rules and regulations in the appointment and regularization process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with a direction, and no costs were imposed. Consequently, all miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.1821/2009/C1(Maiyam), dated 04.12.2015 insofar as it fails to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2009 with consequential benefits and consequently direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners as Technical Assistant with effect from 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits of fixation of pay and arrears of pay.)
1. This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order, dated 04.12.2015 insofar as it fails to regularize the service of the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2009 with consequential benefits and consequential direction to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners as Technical Assistants with effect from 01.01.2009 with consequential benefits of fixation to pay and arrears of pay.
2. The petitioners were originally recruited as NMR Technical Assistant in the Respondent Corporation, through Employment Exchange in the year 1984 and are working without any break. Their initial appointments were made based on their Technical Educational qualification namely Diploma in Civil Engineering which is pre-requisite qualification for the said post. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.125 Municipal Administration & Water Supply (MAWS) Department, dated 27.05.1999 to regularize the service of daily wages employees who were working as on 01.10.1996 in various Municipalities including the then Trichy Municipality. The said G.O. directed the Municipalities to prepare a list of daily wage employees with service particulars.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that the list was not prepared as directed and the respondent included the persons who have not employed through employment exchange. Moreover, the list was prepared without any preference to the educational, technical qualification attached to the said post. In the year 2001, vacancy arose in the post of Technical Assistants. The petitioners are possessing technical qualification and were working for more than 7 years. However, the applicants who were not appointed through employment exchange were accommodated. This approach was contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.187 MAWS dated 24.07.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.21 MAWS dated 02.03.1998. As per these G.O.’s persons recruited through Employment exchange ought to be given first priority at the time of regularization. Hence, the petitioners have filed W.P(MD)No.4662 of 2001 seeking a direction to regularize their service by giving preference to them, since they were recruited through employment exchange. Two other writ petitions were also filed namely, W.P(MD)Nos.5174 & 5175 of 2001 whereby the action of regularizing ineligible persons was challenged. During the pendency of the writ petitions, in the year 2007, at least seven vacancies arose in the post of Technical Assistant.
4. The petitioners were under bonafide relief and they would be accommodated, however to the contrary, the petitioners were regularized as Mazdoor (unskilled category). In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed W.P(MD)No.2866 of 2009 challenging the G.O(D)No.274, MAWS dated 19.06.2007 and the consequential proceedings, dated 29.06.2007 with consequential relief of regularization and to give priority as per G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 24.07.1987 and G.O.Ms.No.21, MAWS dated 02.03.1998. All the writ petitions were heard and disposed of through a common order, dated 04.07.2014. The Hon'ble Court found that there was a proposal by the Municipal Administration on 10.10.2013, whereby the respondent corporation was permitted to fill up 12 posts of Technical Assistants and there is no impediment for the respondent to appoint the petitioners in those posts. On the above basis a direction was issued to complete the exercise of accommodating the petitioners in such vacancies. The petition
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.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and the applicability of this provision to the petitioner's case.
Employment and Service matter - Regularization of service - Absence of any strong justification assigned by respondents, for not regularizing service of petitioner, case of petitioner also needs cons....
The court emphasized the need for regularization of employees appointed irregularly but possessing the prescribed qualifications and working against sanctioned posts, in line with previous judgments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that irregular appointments, if not illegal, may warrant consideration for regularization, especially when similar cases have been directed for reg....
Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless s....
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
