Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
D.Senthilkumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of TamilNadu – Respondent
W.P.No. 1053 of 2023 | W.M.P.Nos. 1044 & 1045 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.Ilamurugu
For the Respondents: K.Vasanthamala

A daily wage employee is entitled to regularization when similarly situated employees have already been regularized, and the employer cannot discriminate on technical grounds not applied to those others.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Regularization of daily wage employee - Principle of equal treatment under Article 14.

(B) Regularization of services - Once similarly placed employees are regularized by court orders, denial of same benefit to another employee on technical grounds (such as non-sponsorship by employment exchange) amounts to discrimination - Doctrine of negative equality cannot be invoked to justify refusal when the employer has already regularized others.

(C) Administrative law - Inter-office memo rejecting representation can be challenged by way of writ petition - Absence of stay in pending appeal against regularization of similarly situated person does not prevent grant of relief to petitioner. (Paras 12-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage driver on full time basis against a sanctioned vacant post in 2004 and had worked continuously without blemish. Two other drivers (U.Selvam and P.Subramani) who were similarly placed were regularized by the High Court in earlier writ petitions. Despite positive recommendations from the respondent authorities, the petitioner’s request for regularization was rejected through an inter-office memo dated 23.12.2022 on the ground that he was not sponsored by the jurisdictional employment exchange. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the rejection and direction for regularization.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents had regularized the services of two similarly placed drivers - one after a court order and the other on technical grounds after the death of the employee. The respondents’ contention that the petitioner was not sponsored by the employment exchange was not tenable because the other regularized driver (U.Selvam) was similarly recruited through the exchange. The court held that once the respondents had regularized others, they could not apply a different yardstick to the petitioner. The rejection order, though an inter-office memo, effectively communicated the decision and was amenable to judicial review. The court directed regularization of the petitioner’s services from the date of initial appointment with all service and monetary benefits.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization when similarly placed employees have already been regularized. (ii) Whether the rejection on the ground of non-sponsorship by the employment exchange is discriminatory.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equality under Article 14 mandates that persons similarly situated must be treated alike. When the employer has regularized other drivers in similar circumstances, the refusal to regularize the petitioner based on a technical distinction that was not applied to those others is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The pendency of an appeal against the order in favor of one of the regularized employees does not justify denial of relief, particularly when no interim stay has been obtained.

Result: Writ petition allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment in the post of Driver with all service and attendant, monetary benefits, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“calling for the records of the 3^rd respondent in the proceedings bearing RC.No.A2/10076/2022 dated 23.12.2022 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment in the post of Driver with all service and attendant, monetary benefits on par with the drivers who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner in regular time scale of pay within a time frame fixed by this Court”.

2. The brief facts are as follows.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Driver on regular basis (full time) against the sanctioned vacant post in the office of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer at Virudhachalam Enforcement Wing. The petitioner was directed to join duty by proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Cuddalore dated 30.09.2004 and he had also reported for duty immediately. The said appointment was in consultation with the District Employment Exchange and along with the petitioner, two others, i.e., U.Selvam and P.Subramani , have also joined the duty.

4. The petitioner would submit that post his appointment he has been continuously working as a Driver without any blemish records and even during COVID period, he has been functioning continuously. The petitioner during this period has to work in various places within the range of the 3^rd respondent on deputation which is also on regular basis.

5. While so, the 2^nd respondent had called for the service particulars of U.Selvam and the petitioner, in order to regularise their services vide letter dated 05.10.2009, from office of the 3^rd respondent as the said Selvam and the petitioner had requested for regularisation.

6. The 2^nd respondent had instructed the 3^rd respondent to fill up the remaining vacancies for driver immediately from among Ex- Servicemen candidates and to send service particulars of the petitioner and Selvam for regularisation as there was no specific service rule seeking approval from the Government for regularising the post of driver.

7. The petitioner was under a bona fide impression that his service would be regularised and since there was no further orders, the petitioner gave a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 30.06.2021 seeking regularisation, as he had completed 17 years of service in the year 2021.

8. The petitioner would submit that his daily salary was a sum of Rs.615/- per day and a monthly salary of Rs.18,450/-, was sanctioned by proceedings dated 30.11.2022. The 2^nd respondent had once again recommended the regularisation of the petitioner’s service to the 1^st respondent from the date of his appointment. This has not been properly considered and the 1^st respondent rejected the request and the rejection order has been served upon the petitioner on 06.01.2023. The rejection order is absolutely without any reasons.

9. The petitioner would submit that Selvam and P.Subramani , who were similarly placed candidates have been regularised pursuant to their filing of Writ Petitions in WP.No.2015 of 2017 and WP.No.1650 of 2016, respectively. The petitioner would submit that despite positive recommendations as early as in the year 2011, the impugned order has been passed. The similarly placed persons have been regularised and the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

10. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the claim of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, they would state as follows:

“23.It is respectfully submitted that, on perusal of the aforesaid High Court orders, it is seen that the petitioner Thiru U.Selvam was recruited in a temporary capacity as a Driver through sponsorship by the jurisdictional employment exchange. However, the petitioner in the present writ petition is a not a sponsor of jurisdictional Employment Exchange. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim advantage on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHAD.Senthilkumar – AppellantVersusThe State of TamilNadu – RespondentW.P.No. 1053 of 2023 | W.M.P.Nos. 1044 & 1045 of 2023

A daily wage employee is entitled to regularization when similarly situated employees have already been regularized, and the employer cannot discriminate on technical grounds not applied to those others.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
D.Senthilkumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of TamilNadu – Respondent
W.P.No. 1053 of 2023 | W.M.P.Nos. 1044 & 1045 of 2023