Once workers accept permanent status via a formal industrial settlement, they cannot subsequently claim retrospective permanency after a significant, unexplained delay, as such stale claims lack the necessary bona fides required to seek judicial or administrative intervention.

ORDER :

M. Dhandapani, J.

These four petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 30.04.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2.The case of the petitioner in respective writ petitions is that the first respondent therein were initially engaged on a temporary basis as Reserve Crew Drivers and Reserve Crew Conductors on a stop-gap arrangement and were subsequently appointed as daily wage drivers and conductors in the years 1999 and 2000. They were later granted regularisation with effect from 01.09.2005 pursuant to the 12(3) Settlement dated 31.08.2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in view of the Government ban order dated 05.07.2001, no fresh appointments or regularisations could be made during the currency of the ban period. After a lapse of 23 years, the first respondents filed claim petitions under the Conferment Permanent Status Act, in Case Nos.E/115, E/117, A/129 and E/116 of 2023 before the second respondent seeking regularisation. However, the second respondent, without appreciating the counter statement and without any supporting documents from the applicant erroneously passed the impugned order directing regularisation. Hence the present writ petitions have been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra, as the same has already been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD) No.442 of 2025 etc., batch. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the employees having accepted the terms of the 12(3) settlement and served for about ten years, cannot turn around at one fine morning and file a petition under the Permanent Status Act claiming retrospective permanent status on completion of 480 days of continuous service till the date on which they were regularised in the sanctioned post. It was further held that a person, who has slept over his rights, cannot wake up at one fine morning and claim such benefits and in the ordinary circumstances, such claims are to be construed as stale. Further, this Court had also passed a detailed order with regard to the Conferment of Permanent Status in W.P No.7191 of 2024 etc., Batch. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that, admittedly, the first respondents in the respective writ petitions had entered service as temporary drivers and conductors in the years 1999 and 2000, and that their services were regularised only in the year 2005. As per Conferment of Permanent Status Act, the first respondents were entitled to be made permanently upon after completion 480 days within a calendar year, however, the same was not done by the petitioner Corporation. Subsequently, on the basis of legal advice, the first respondents filed petitions under said Act, which came to be allowed. Hence, the said order does not warrants any interference. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.This Court in W.P No.7191 of 2024 etc. batch cases, held as follows:

25. It is not disputed by the respondents that based on the settlement arrived at between the Unions and the Corporation on 31.8.2005, the respondents, who were daily wagers and working as temporary/casual drivers and conductors were absorbed on completion of 240 days of continuous service and regularised