Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
D.Kanniappan – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of employees for regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. delay in regularization contentious. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. full bench rulings on regularization rights. (Para 7 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. counterarguments against retrospective claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 5. directions for regularization implementation. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
These three Writ Petitions are filed for identical reliefs and as such, are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The prayer is in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.20 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.02.2006 and the consequential order, dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and quash the same insofar as it relates to fixing the date of regularization from the date of order and to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from 27.05.2000 in their respective posts as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999 with all arrears of pay, other allowances and consequential benefits.
3. In all these three Writ Petitions, total
Employees' right to regularization is preserved under prior Government Orders, affirming entitlements from initial hiring dates despite administrative delays.
Employees are entitled to regularization on completion of three years of service from their date of initial engagement, as per relevant government orders and previous court decisions.
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.
Regularization of employment should adhere to specific government policies, with part-time employees not entitled to claim rights reserved for full-time roles.
Retrospective regularization cannot be granted if the initial appointments were not made in a regular time scale of pay in a sanctioned post.
The government servant is entitled to salary and other service benefits attached to the post only from the date of appointment and not prior to the said date of appointment.
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of regularization of the petitioners' services from the completion of 10 years of service in 2002 was discriminatory and contrary t....
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
Regularization of illegal appointments and entitlement to monetary benefits must be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions, relevant case laws, and government orders. Part-time employ....
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
