An employee who accepts permanent status under a 12(3) settlement and fails to challenge the regularization for over a decade cannot subsequently raise a stale claim for retrospective permanent status.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Case No. C/ 2684/ 2022 by the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2.The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the first respondent was appointed as a daily wage conductor on 01.04.2000 and was subsequently granted regularisation with effect from 01.09.2005 based on 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 17 years, the first respondent filed a claim petition under the Conferment of Permanent Status Act in Case No. C/ 2684/ 2022 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 petition has 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, despite the conferment of permanent status granted in favour of the first respondent by the second respondent in Case No. C/ 2684/ 2022, the same was not implemented by the petitioner Corporation. Therefore, the first respondent filed W.P No.29547 of 2023 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, and this Court, by its order dated 13.12.2023, directed the petitioner Corporation to implement the order passed by the second respondent within a period of eight weeks. Hence, the relief sought for by the petitioner Corporation cannot be granted. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

5.In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation would submit that the order passed in W.P No.29547 of 2023 dated 13.12.2023 was made subject to the writ petition pending before this Court. However, the first respondent failed to disclose the pendency of the present writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and consequently, the Madurai Bench issued a direction to the petitioner Corporation to implement the order of the second respondent, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner Corporation. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

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

7.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