Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
M.Kumaresan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the second respondent, whereby he was terminated from service on 06.02.2017, and further prays for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to reinstate him in a regular vacancy and permit him to continue his regularized service with effect from 16.05.1990 to 21.08.2007 by relaxing the rules, as has been done in the case of other Government Departments.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above case are as follows:
(i) On 26.04.1990, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking appointment. Subsequently, on 16.05.1990, he was appointed as a Night Watchman on a daily wage basis. On 05.07.2002, this Court, in W.P. No. 24107 of 2002, passed an order directing the second respondent/CEO to consider the petitioner’s representation. Further, the Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s service until the disposal of the representation.
(ii) On 17.08.2007, the second respondent passed an order rejecting the representation. On 21.08.2007, the petitioner was relieved from service. On 04.12.2007, challenging the relieving order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 28231 of 2007, which was
Adherence to prescribed recruitment procedures is essential for employment regularization; failure to comply invalidates claims for regularization despite prior service.
The denial of regularization for long-serving employees on technical grounds is arbitrary, prioritizing fairness and the welfare principle in employment.
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.
The court ruled that an appointment made without proper qualifications and procedures, constituting a backdoor entry, cannot confer rights to permanency under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments....
Irregular appointment and non-compliance with Recruitment Rules can disentitle an employee from seeking the benefit of regularisation.
Employees who serve continuously for significant periods are entitled to regularisation, regardless of initial appointment methods, emphasizing fair employment practices.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reinstated daily wagers are eligible for regularization in accordance with the circular dated 5.3.2008, and the respondent authorities must de....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Point of law : Contractual appointment - If the workman is retrenched by an oral order or communication or he is simply asked not to come for duty, the employer will be required to lead tangible and ....
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
