Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
N. Thangarasu - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 710 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2024
REGULARIZATION - EMPLOYMENT - The court upheld the principle that regularization of service does not entitle an employee to retrospective benefits from the date of initial appointment, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings. The appellant's claim for retrospective regularization was denied based on the concession granted during regularization, affirming the Writ Court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was appointed as Night Watchman on 09.01.1989 and had his services regularized on 23.11.2001, retiring on 30.04.2019. He sought retrospective regularization from the date of his initial appointment, which was not considered by the respondents, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Writ Court found that the appellant's regularization was a concession and cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindasamy, which supported the denial of retrospective regularization.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to retrospective regularization of service from the date of initial appointment despite having been regularized later.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that regularization does not imply entitlement to retrospective benefits, as established in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, emphasizing that concessions granted during regularization cannot be extended to earlier periods.
Result: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Writ Court's decision to deny retrospective regularization.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 04.03.2022 of this Hon'ble Court made in WP.No.4743 of 2022 and also the order of rejection dated 07.01.2021 by allowing this appeal and directing the respondents to grant all monetary benefits on including the service rendered from 17.01.1989 to 22.11.2001 in regularized service.]
The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appellant was appointed as Night Watchman in the office of the Tahsildar on 09.01.1989 and his services are regularized with effect from 23.11.2001 and retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.04.2019. The appellant claimed that he is entitled to be regularized from the initial date of his appointment in the post of Night Watchman on temporary basis. However, the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner and consequently, writ petition was filed. The Writ Court considered the fact that the appellant was appointed as Night Watchman on daily wage basis and his services were regularized by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.523 dated 23.11.2001. In the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.523, the rules relating to recruitment was relaxed in favour of the appellant. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindasamy reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769, the Writ Court declined to grant the relief of retrospective regularization from the date of initial appointment.
2. The issues regarding regularization and permanent absorption are no more res integra.
3. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 reiterated the principles relating to regularisation. In the present case, the benefit of regularisation and permanent absorption granted to the appellant itself is a concession. Therefore, the said concession cannot be extended for the purpose of granting retrospective regularisation from the date of initial appointment. Since the services of the appellant was regularised by the Government by extending the concession, the Writ Court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for retrospective regularisation. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
AI
Regularization of service does not confer the right to retrospective benefits from the date of initial appointment; such benefits are contingent upon the terms of regularization.
The denial of regularization for long-serving employees on technical grounds is arbitrary, prioritizing fairness and the welfare principle in employment.
Irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularised, and the benefit of regularisation already granted by the government is a concession that cannot be extended further.
Regularisation of service must be prospective to avoid affecting the seniority of regularly appointed employees, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
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....
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....
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
The acceptance of a regularization condition precludes the claim for retrospective 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
