The effective date of regularisation of employees under a scheme for regularisation is generally the date on which a scale of pay is fixed for the post in question.

Headnote:
REGULARISATION - SERVICE - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - SCHEME FOR REGULARISATION - EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULARISATION
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was regularised in service as a Technician in ANERT with effect from 13.7.2011. He sought retrospective regularisation with effect from the date of his initial appointment in ANERT, namely, 12.8.1995. The Government rejected his request, and the petitioner challenged the rejection order in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not similarly placed as other employees who were granted retrospective regularisation. The petitioner's services were terminated in 2009, and he was re-engaged on a contract basis in 2011. The scheme for regularisation envisaged regularisation from the date a scale of pay was fixed for the post, which was 13.7.2011 in the petitioner's case. Therefore, the petitioner could only be regularised with effect from 13.7.2011.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective regularisation with effect from the date of his initial appointment in ANERT.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not similarly placed as other employees who were granted retrospective regularisation. The petitioner's services were terminated in 2009, and he was re-engaged on a contract basis in 2011. The scheme for regularisation envisaged regularisation from the date a scale of pay was fixed for the post, which was 13.7.2011 in the petitioner's case. Therefore, the petitioner could only be regularised with effect from 13.7.2011.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition by upholding Ext.P14 order of the Government that was impugned in the writ petition.

J U D G M E N T

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The State is in appeal before us against the judgment dated

29.3.2019 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.6639 of 2018. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

The writ petitioner was regularised in the service of the Agency for Non Conventional Energy and Rural Technology [ANERT] as a Technician. In the writ petition, he was aggrieved by Ext.P14 order dated 12.2.2018 of the Government in the Power Department that rejected his claim for regularisation with effect from his date of joining ANERT as a Technician on ad hoc basis namely, 12.8.1995. The contention of the writ petitioner was essentially that he had been appointed as a Technician on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.1200/- on 27.7.1995 and after joining for duty on 12.08.1995, he had continued to work under ANERT without any break till April, 2009. Thereafter, when his services were dispensed with, he approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.484 of 2010, which was disposed directing ANERT to consider his case for regularisation in accordance with the Scheme then in vogue. The ANERT proceeded to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for regularisation, but rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner approached the Government through a representation dated 27.5.2011. The Government, on a consideration of the said representation, found that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation, ANERT had not taken into consideration the services that had been rendered by him in ANERT as an ad hoc employee, and hence, taking note of his familiarity with the work in ANERT, recommended the engagement of the petitioner in an appropriate vacancy on contract basis for a period of one year. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said recommendation by the Government, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as a Technician with effect from 13.7.2011. The contract period was further extended by another year on the expiry of the initial period of one year from 13.7.2011. While so, by Ext.P4 proceedings dated 28.9.2012, the Director of ANERT addressed the Principal Secretary, Power Department to the Government of Kerala, recommending the issuance of orders of regularisation of employees who had already completed ten years of service in ANERT. While forwarding the details of employees who, according to ANERT, had more than ten years of service in the Organisation, the name of the petitioner was also forwarded clearly indicating therein that, while he had commenced service in ANERT as a Technician with effect from 12.8.1995, the recommendation for regularisation was with effect from 13.7.2011 in the post of Technician, when the scale of pay of Rs.5930 - 9590 was fixed for the post of Technician in the Organisation. The said recommendation of ANERT was accepted by the Government, and Ext.P5 order dated 5.7.2013 was passed regularising the service of the petitioner as Technician with effect from 13.7.2011.

2. Not satisfied with the regularisation granted to him with effect from 13.7.2011, and pointing out specific instances where employees, who had been engaged on ad hoc basis, had been granted regularisation with effect from the date of their initial appointment in ANERT on ad hoc basis, the petitioner approached the Government yet again seeking a retrospective regularisation with effect from the date of his initial appointment in ANERT, namely, 12.8.1995. It was this representation that was rejected by the Government by Ext.P14 order that was impugned in the writ petition.

3. Counter affidavits were filed in the writ petition by ANERT as also by the Government, wherein, the stand taken was essentially that the decision of the Government to regularise the services of employees in ANERT was based on the recommendations made by the Director, ANERT, and accordingly, the effective date of regularisation was to be the date on which a scale of pay was fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document