The denial of regularization for long-serving employees on technical grounds is arbitrary, prioritizing fairness and the welfare principle in employment.

JUDGMENT :

(J. NISHA BANU, J.)

Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court dated 05.02.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.4397 of 2021, the respondents as appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings passed by the first appellant dated 05.03.2018 and consequently to direct the appellants to regularize his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment, along with all other consequential monetary and service benefits.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:

3.1. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Watchman on 01.07.1991 through the employment exchange pursuant to a call letter issued by the fourth appellant. Though it was stated in the appointment order that the writ petitioner’s appointment was temporary, it was intended to be made permanent, as the appointment was based on employment seniority. A service register was also opened and he was paid a regular time scale of pay. Subsequently, he was transferred and posted as a Night Watchman in the Krishnarayapuram Panchayat Union Office on 17.07.1992.

3.2. Since his service was not regularized for a long period, the fourth appellant, by proceedings dated 17.08.2010, forwarded certain particulars to the third appellant for the purpose of regularization. As the said proposal was not acted upon, the writ petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.11146 of 2015 seeking a direction for regularization of his services. This Court, by order dated 11.02.2016, directed the third appellant to consider his representation in light of the fourth appellant's recommendation.

3.3. Pursuant to the same, the fifth appellant, by proceedings dated 04.03.2016, informed the writ petitioner that ratification from the Government was required to relax the age criteria at the time of appointment. Subsequently, the third appellant, by proceedings dated 19.03.2016, sent a proposal to the second appellant to regularize the writ petitioner’s services, incorporating a request for relaxation of age.

3.4. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. Since his service was not regularized, no formal retirement order was issued and he was orally instructed not to report to duty. Thereafter, the second appellant, by proceedings dated 25.09.2017, sought directions and accordingly, the first appellant, by proceedings dated 26.09.2017, requested further particulars. The third appellant furnished the required particulars by proceedings dated 28.11.2017.

3.5. Despite this, no action was taken. Hence, the writ petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.360 of 2018 and this Court, by order dated 26.02.2018, directed the first appellant to pass final orders on or before 30.04.2018 based on the communication, dated 28.11.2017. Nevertheless, no action was taken. Ultimately, the first appellant, by the impugned proceedings dated 05.03.2018, rejected the writ petitioner’s claim for regularization on the ground that his appointment was made after the issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.878, Rural Development Department, dated 15.05.1981 and his name was not included in G.O.(Ms)No.161, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 26.06.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record and