Regularization of employment is prospective; retrospective benefits disrupt established seniority among employees.

Order on Board

[27-01-2025]

1. Both these Writ Petitions are directed against the impugned Orders dated 29.7.2016 by which the Petitioners have been denied the monetary benefits prior to the date of their regularization.

2. The Petitioners were working as daily wager in the Respondent-Corporation since 1992. This Court by its Order dated 15.1.2014 disposed of W.P.(S) No.4406/2013 which was filed by the Petitioners, directing the competent authority to decide their case of regularization in terms of the Circular dated 5.3.2008 issued by the State Government. Accordingly, the case of the Petitioners was considered and they were regularized with effect from 9.10.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioners made their respective representation seeking regularization from 2008 and also difference of amount for the period from 2008 till the period when they were regularized in service i.e. in October, 2014, which has been rejected by the Respondent-Corporation vide impugned Orders.

3. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the Respondent-Corporation is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim/ representation of the Petitioner and the Petitioners ought to have been granted the monetary benefit from the year 2008.

4. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Corporation and Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State Counsel, both support the impugned Orders.

5. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

6. Circular dated 5.3.2008 by virtue of which the Petitioners’ services have been regularized, Part-B clause (viii) of which clearly provides that daily wagers/ad-hoc workers will be deemed to be regular employee from the date when order of their regularization is passed and not from the prior date and their name shall be placed below in the Gradation List en-bloc as per their inter-se seniority. For ready reference, clause (viii) is being reproduced herein under:-

“(viii) Ifji= tkjh gksus ds ckn iz’kkldh; foHkkxksa }kjk fu;fefrdj.k ds vkns’k ftl fnu tkjh fd;s tk;saxsa mlh fnukad ls gh fu;fer deZpkjh ekus tk;saxsaA iwoZ ds fdlh fnukad ls ughaA indze lwph esa buds uke vkilh ofj”Brk vuqlkj ,uCYkkd lcls uhps j[ks tk;asxsaA”

7. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another v . V. Thippa Setty & Others¹ wherein it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinary be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under:-

“2. ...It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take car