Employees who serve continuously for significant periods are entitled to regularisation, regardless of initial appointment methods, emphasizing fair employment practices.

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 that the appointment of the respondents could either be regular or irregular, but no means it could be illegal. Arriving at such a conclusion, the writ court have extended the benefits covered under G.O.(Ms.)No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 and had directed the appellants to regularise the services of the respondents from the date of their initial appointment. Assailing the impugned order, this intra-court appeal is preferred.

4. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants mainly contended that even though the first respondent was sponsored through the Employment Exchange, respondents 2 to 5 have not been recruited through the Employment Exchange and they have not undergone the regular selection process to claim regularisation. He further contended that their services were not continuous and they had been given a break in service once a year for 5 days.

5. It is his vehement contention that since the respondents have not completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006, the benefits under G.O.(Ms.)No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.(Ms.)No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, cannot be extended to them.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on the decisions in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Secretary to Government Vs. Thiru.R.Govindaswamy and Others (Civil Appeal Nos.2726-2729 of 2014 dated 21.02.2014) and contended that the order directing regularisation of services of the respondents cannot be sustained and sought for indulgence of this Court.

7. Ms.R.T.Sundari, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents who have been working from 1999, 2003, 2002, 1995 and 2008 respectively have nearly put in 2 decades of service and when similarly placed employees throughout the State have been regularised, the respondents alone are given a differential treatment.

8. The learned counsel further contended that the respondents are working in the posts that are enumerated under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service and when they are permanent posts, the appellants cannot extract work from the respondents for decades together by simply keeping them as temporary employees.

9. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

10. Admittedly, the first respondent was sponsored through the Employment Exchange and was appointed as Sweeper on 11.01.1999 and is working on a daily wage basis in the third appellant institution. The respondents 2 and 3 were appointed in January 2003 and October 2002 in the third respondent institution and are working as Office Assistants. The respondents 4 a