Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH, MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ
Secretary To Government, Education Departmen – Appellant
Versus
M.Kamalanathan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
The State is on appeal challenging the order of the writ court dated 27.07.2021 made in W.A.No.33454 of 2015, whereby the services of the respondents were directed to be regularised with effect from the date of their initial appointment.
2. The respondents herein who are working in the third appellant institution, since without their services being regularised, attempts were made by the respondents to issue a notification to fill up several posts, have approached the writ court seeking to quash the notification dated 02.09.2015 and direct the appellants for regularisation of their services.
3. The writ court by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Orthers reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had distinguished the back door appointments and employment process by fair means holding that the employment cannot be on exploitative forms and also observing that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 cannot be used only to deny the benefits of regularisation, held tha
Employees who serve continuously for significant periods are entitled to regularisation, regardless of initial appointment methods, emphasizing fair employment practices.
Government departments must ensure fair employment practices and cannot exploit temporary workers, especially those with long service, by misapplying legal precedents.
The court reaffirmed that long-serving employees, despite irregular appointments, are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the importance of continuity of service without considering minor lapses ....
Regularization of long-serving daily wage employees is mandated after 10 years of service, acknowledging functional continuity despite initial irregularities, violating constitutional rights otherwis....
The denial of regularization for long-serving employees on technical grounds is arbitrary, prioritizing fairness and the welfare principle in employment.
Long-term employees, fulfilling essential duties, are entitled to regularization after 10 years of service despite irregular appointments, emphasizing fairness and preventing exploitation.
Long-term employees performing essential and continuous functions may claim regularization after a decade of service, despite previous procedural irregularities.
Long-standing service without a formal appointment does not deny employees the right to regularization; discriminatory treatment of similarly situated employees violates principles of equity and fair....
Regularization of employees with irregular appointments who have served for a significant duration is constitutionally mandated when they fulfill essential duties, emphasizing equity and justice in p....
Long-serving employees in essential roles are entitled to consideration for regularization despite initial irregular appointments, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.
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
