Regularization of employment should adhere to specific government policies, with part-time employees not entitled to claim rights reserved for full-time roles.

JUDGMENT :

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

The State is on appeal challenging the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(MD)No.1417 of 2017 filed by the respondent herein.

2.The respondent was serving in the Water Resources Organization of the Public Works Department as Nominal Muster Roll Employee (NMR) from 01.05.1997 till 31.10.2010. Persons who had joined the department as NMRs even subsequently had been regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.202 Public Works Department dated 01.08.2012. They were regularized from the date on which they had completed ten years of service. Seeking grant of similar relief, the respondent herein submitted representation to the department. His request was rejected by the Government vide letter dated 19.09.2016. Challenging the same, W.P.(MD)No.1417 of 2017 was filed. The learned Single Judge set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and granted relief in the following terms:-

“5.By the impugned order passed by the first respondent, it is stated that the representation of the petitioner for regularization cannot be considered in the case of the petitioner, as he has not been recruited through Employment Exchange and that the petitioner had not completed ten years of service before 01.01.2006. The impugned order is, therefore, based on the assumption that an employee is entitled to regularization only if he completes ten years of service before the issuance of G.O.(Ms).No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, which was given retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. It is now demonstrated before this Court that several batches of employees, who have completed ten years of service after 2006, have been regularized. It is also admitted before this Court that the original order of the Government regularizing a few hundreds of employees indicate that the Nominal Muster Roll employees were not selected through Employment Exchange.

6.The issue on hand has already been settled by this Court in W.P.No.16107 of 2012 and the same was also confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(CC)No.17385 of 2016. A Review Petition filed thereafter, in R.P. (C)No.2442 of 2017 was also dismissed on 30.09.2016. Since several others, who were similarly placed were given the benefit of regularization irrespective of the date of completion of ten years, this Court has no hesitation to allow this Writ Petition in tune with the precedents submitted by the petitioner before this Court.

7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order, dated 19.09.2016, passed by the first respondent, is quashed and the first respondent is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner on par with other persons, who got their service regularised earlier. The regularization of service shall be with effect from the date on which the petitioner completes ten years of service. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders and disburse the monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

3.The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge had merely applied the principle of equality ensh