Irregular appointments do not confer rights for regularization; public employment must adhere to service rules.

ORDER :

(S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the order dated 05.12.2016 passed in O.A.No.129 of 2015. The Union Territory of Puducherry is the Writ Petitioner before this Court. The respondents were initially appointed as Part time Causal Labourers in the year 1997 and thereafter, appointed as Full Time Casual Labourers in the year 2010.

2. The grievance of the respondents are that, one Smt.Sarasu appointed as Part Time Casual Labourer, subsequently was appointed as Full Time Casual Labourer in the year 2006. Therefore, the case of the respondents also to be considered on par with Smt.Sarasu for grant of Full Time Casual Labourer with effect from 27.07.2006.

3. Tribunal considered the issues and quashed the rejection order passed by the Writ Petitioner on 17.12.2014 and directed to grant the benefit of engagement on Full Time basis with effect from 27.07.2006 along with consequential benefits.

4. Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, the learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) would mainly contend that mistake committed by the Government in the case of Smt.Sarasu cannot be followed in perpetuity. In no other case, the benefit of Full Time employment was granted with retrospective effect. Admittedly, all the respondents were initially appointed as Part time employees in education department for more than 3 hours per day. Since their appointment itself is part time, grant of Full Time employment is a concession granted by the Government. All the respondents were already appointed as Full time staff and therefore, now they cannot seek retrospective benefit merely based on the case of Smt.Sarasu, who was granted benefit erroneously by the Government of Puducherry.

5. Mr.Mohanraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that, the respondents 2 to 17 were included and placed in the appropriate place with reference to their date of engagement on part time basis. The date of engagement on part time basis i.e., the year 1997 was correctly mentioned in the order dated 09.10.2017. When the respondents were engaged on part time basis from the year 1997 onwards, the benefit granted to Smt.Sarasu as full time employee from the year 2006 is to be extended to all the respondents.

6. This Court considered the issues raised between the parties. The part time employment was granted to the respondents by the Writ Petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.85, Chief Secretariat (Education), dated 01.07.2003. The Government order reads as under,

ORDER

Sanction of the Lieutenant Governor, Pondicherry is hereby conveyed for the extension of services of 24 Part- time employees engaged in various schools under the control of the Education Department, Pondicherry as mentioned in the Annexure to this G.O. from stop-gap arrangement basis to continuous basis as Part-time staff (more than three hours) with immediate-effect.

2. In future, the Education Department, Pondicherry, should not resort to the engagement of Part- time staff, otherwise than through the Employment Exchange, Pondicherry.

3. The expenditure is debitable to the relevant Head of Account under which their wages are claimed as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 5.12.88 and G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 29.1.90 of Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms (PW), Pondicherry.

4. This issues with concurrence of the Finance Department vide U.O.No.44043/03/F4 dated 16.5.2003.

7. The Government order indicates that, the part time employment was provided as stop-gap arrangement (more than 3 hours). Therefore, it is a stop-gap arrangement made by appointing part time employees, till such time the regular appointments are made in accordance with the service rules in force. Such part time employment for more than 3 hours as stop-gap arrangement would not confer any right to claim full time employment or regularisation of services. However, in the present case, the Government itself considered and granted full time employment to the respondents. They are seeking retrospective full time employment by citing the