Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J.NISHA BANU, J, S. SRIMATHY
State represented by, The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department – Appellant
Versus
K. Vadivel – Respondent
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
The denial of regularization for long-serving employees on technical grounds is arbitrary, prioritizing fairness and the welfare principle in employment.
Irregular appointments may be regularized after prolonged continuous service, as technical grounds cannot undermine substantive employment rights.
The court established that long-term service and existing vacancies can warrant regularization, even if initial appointments were irregular, provided the employees meet certain criteria.
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.
Employees who serve continuously for significant periods are entitled to regularisation, regardless of initial appointment methods, emphasizing fair employment practices.
Long-term employees engaged in continuous service are entitled to regularization and benefits even post-retirement if their claims remain pending during their service, subject to compliance with appl....
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.
Longstanding service in public roles warrants regularisation and cannot be arbitrarily denied based on technicalities; constitutional principles require fair treatment of employees.
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
