Part-time employees not entitled to regularization or regular pay parity.

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.This application has been filed seeking review of the order dated

22.09.2025 passed by us allowing W.A(MD)Nos.1357 of 2019. The said writ appeal was filed by the Government questioning the order dated 26.03.2019 in W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018. The said writ petition was filed by the review applicants. The review applicants had questioned the validity of G.O(Ms)No.79 Youth Welfare and Sports Department dated 19.12.2012 and for consequential relief of fixing them in regular time scale of pay. The writ petitioners were aggrieved by the fixation of a special time scale of pay. The writ petitioners had been appointed as part-time sweepers.

3.The learned counsel for the review applicants submitted that the order passed by us suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and hence it deserves to be reviewed. Two facts need to be noted. The learned Single Judge had extracted the order dated 19.09.2014 made in W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013 and allowed the writ petition filed by the applicants. Copy of the said order has been made available and in Paragraph 22 of the order, the learned single Judge had stated as follows: “It is not the case of the respondents either in the G.O or in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are appointed as part time employees.” In the case on hand, the writ petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers. Thus, there was a clear distinction between the facts obtaining in W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013 and the one obtaining in W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018 filed by the review applicants. The learned Single Judge was under the impression that the two cases were identical. On this sole ground, the order passed by the learned single Judge had to be set aside.

4.Be that as it may, it is seen that the writ petitioners herein had earlier filed W.P(MD)No.1943 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.2371 of 2011 seeking the relief of regularization and fixation of regular time scale of pay. Their writ petitions were allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on

23.09.2011. The learned single Judge had passed the following order:

“In all these cases, the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay before the ban order came into existence. They have completed three years of service and when they have approached the authorities for regularisation of their service, the same was rejected. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petitions are filed for a direction to grant them time scale of pay and regularisation after three years from the date of completion of original date of appointment on consolidated pay.

2.This issue has been covered by unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A(MD)No.273 of 2011, dated 02.03.2011 which has been followed by this Court also.

3.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of these petitioners from the date of completion of three years from their original date of appointment. Such orders shall be passed by the respondents, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

5.Aggrieved by the same, the State filed W.A(MD)No.1155 to 1159 of 2014. The Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order passed the learned single Judge and allowed the Writ Appeals on 28.01.2016. Paragraph 10 of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is as follows:

“10.There is also one more additional reason. The respondents were appointed as part-time sweepers in the Directorate of National Cadet Corps on consolidated pay. By G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance Department, dated 01.