The court affirmed the right to regularization for long-serving employees despite subsequent government orders affecting retired employees, emphasizing the need for judicial consistency and the acknowledgment of historical service.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by one Thiraviam Pillai, respondent in this appeal, who joined as Watchman on daily wage basis on 08.10.1982 in the third respondent Department got retired on 29.02.2012. He along with three others initially filed writ petition seeking regularization of their services. The said writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for deciding the service disputes of the State Government Employees and renumbered as T.A.Nos.482 of 1992 and 4 of 1993.

2.The Tribunal held that there is no impediment in regularizing the services of the applicants and they will be entitled to regularization from the date of indicated in the proceedings. The appellants were directed to pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order copy. Though the order was passed on 19.04.2002, the appellants herein regularized services of only two out of four applicants and Thiraviam Pillai/writ petitioner was left without being regularized.

3.Therefore, he again filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7155 of 2011 before this Court and in the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that Thiraviam Pillai cannot be discriminated without being regularised, in spite of putting more than 28 years of service, directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the writ petitioner pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.73, Agriculture Department, dated 23.02.1999 and the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 19.04.2002. Unfortunately, even this order was not implemented by the time Thiraviyam Pillai attained superannuation and got retired on 29.02.2012.

4.Thereafter, when his representation was disposed of by the Director of Agricultural Department on 21.08.2014, rejecting the request of Thiraviam Pillai for regularization citing the reason that he has already attained superannuation on 29.02.2012 and the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, regarding relaxation of the age under Rule 5(1) of the Special Rules, will not be applicable to him.

5.Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the Director, Agriculture Department, dated 21.08.2014, Thiraviyam Pillai has filed W.P.(MD)No.8107 of 2023. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.06.2023, allowed the writ petition directing the first respondent, namely Secretary to Government, Department of Agricultural to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of submitting the proposal for regularizing the services by Thiraviyam Pillai and disburse his terminal benefits within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The said order is challenged by the respondents in this writ appeal.

6.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 27.06.2013 will apply only to the the persons, who are in service on date of that G.O., and not to the persons, who have already attained superannuation and it has given retrospective effect from 01.01.2006

7.As far as Thiraviyam Pillai is concerned, having retired on 29.02.2012, his request for regularisation got rejected on 21.08.2014. He had not challenged the rejection order immediately, but waited for more than 9 years and preferred writ petition only in the year 2023. The latches had not been properly explained and therefore, even on that score, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. However, the learned Single Judge errone