Madras High Court
A.Muthu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 June, 2022
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 & 6238 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2014
A.Muthu
S/o.Appusamy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6235/2014
R.Sekar
S/o.K.Ramasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6236/2014
U.Murugesan
S/o.N.Udaiyan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6237/2014
S.Karuppasamy
S/o.Subramaniyan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6238/2014
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its
Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (E2) Department,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai - 6. ... Respondents in all petitions
PRAYER:
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
G.O.Ms.No.58, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated 21.05.2008
passed by the first respondent and quash the same in respect of the
regularisation of the petitioner from the date of issuance of the Government
order insofar as the petitioner is concerned and directing the respondents to
regularise the service of the petitioner either from the date of initial appointment
(or) from the date of the actual vacancy arose (or) from the date of completion
of 10 years of service as given to others with all benefits.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.Suresh
[in all petitions] for Mr.K.Sanjay
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha
[in all petitions] Special Government Pleader
*****
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Order
issued in G.O.Ms.No.58, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated
21.05.2008.
2. The petitioners were engaged as daily wage Watchmen through
employment exchange in the department of labour. Admittedly, they were
continuing as daily wage employees for more than 10 years and pursuant to the
Government orders issued during the relevant point of time, proposals were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
submitted to regularize the services of the petitioners. Considering the proposal,
the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.58, Labour and Employment (E2)
Department, dated 21.05.2008 regularizing the services of the petitioners with
effect from the date of the Government order i.e. 21.05.2008.
3. A perusal of the Government order reveals that rules relating to age
and reservation were relaxed in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of grant
of regularization. Thus, the initial appointment of the petitioners was irregular
and not in accordance with the service rules in force.
4. In spite of the fact that the initial appointment of the petitioners was
irregular and not in accordance with the rules in force, the Government
regularized the services in favour of the petitioners considering the fact that they
were continuing as daily wage employees for more than ten years. Thus, the
benefit of regularization and permanent absorption itself was a concession
extended by the Government, more so, by relaxing the relevant rules in force.
5. The question arises for consideration is whether relaxation of rules can
be granted in favour of an individual in a routine manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
6. The power of relaxation is conferred on the Government only for a
limited purpose to mitigate the extraordinary circumstances or in case of gross
injustice. The power of relaxation cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The
power of relaxation is an exception to be exercised judiciously so as to ensure
that the injustice, if any, crept in is rectified.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended
that the similarly placed persons were granted the benefit of retrospective
regularization with all benefits. When the benefit of retrospective regularization
on completion of ten years has been granted to the other similarly placed
persons, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners and hence, the
action of the respondents are discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
8. No doubt, there is force in the argument advanced by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners. However, the Courts are bound to consider the
implications and the principles settled in the matter of regularization and
permanent absorption. It is not as if the Courts can mechanically follow certain
orders irrespective of the facts and circumstances involved in a particular case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
9. In the present case, the writ petitions itself have been filed after a lapse
of about six years from the date of passing of the order. The impugned
Government order was passed in the year 2008 and the writ petitions have been
filed in the year 2014 after a lapse of six years. Thus, these petitions are liable
to be rejected on the ground of latches.
10. Regarding regularization and permanent absorption, the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma devi [ 2006 4 SCC 1] settled the principles.
11. No doubt, the Constitution Bench extended one time benefit to the
employees whose proposal were pending for regularization when the judgment
was delivered in the year 2006. However, such one time benefit cannot be
extended for an indefinite period and subsequently, the Courts have clarified
that regularization and permanent absorption are to be made only if the
appointments are made in accordance with the service rules in force.
12. In paragraph No. 54 of the Uma Devi's case (cited supra), the
Constitution Bench reiterated that any subsequent judgment running contrary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench denuded to loose its status
as precedent and the same cannot be followed for the purpose of grant of
regularization or permanent absorption and those judgments are constrained to
its facts and circumstances alone. This being the law in force, this Court is of
the opinion that High Court cannot issue any direction to regularize the services
of the petitioners, more so, with retrospective effect once the appointment is
irregular or illegal.
13. The practice of filing similar writ petitions is in growing trend. While
adopting the similarity and applying the principles of equality under Article 14
of the Constitution of India, the legality are also to be tested by the Courts. Any
illegality cannot be a ground to claim equality. Thus, once the principles are
settled in Courts of law and the persons aggrieved approaches the Court within
a reasonable time, then alone the benefits are to be extended by applying Article
14 of the Constitution of India and not otherwise. It is not as if the petitioners
can approach the Court of law by citing an order which is otherwise reversed
subsequently or the principles are changed by the Courts on account of length of
time or otherwise. All such factors would play a pivotal role in extending such
benefits as mechanical extension of such retrospective regularisation would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
involve financial implications to the State exchequer and the Courts are also
expected to be cautious while dealing with such nature of cases. In the event of
grant of retrospective regularization, all those employees are entitled for
retrospective benefits, which they are otherwise not entitled as their initial
appointment was irregular or illegal.
14. In the present case, the petitioners have approached this court after a
lapse of six years from the date of passing of the Government order and further
more, the benefit of regularization was granted as concession by the
Government, more so, by relaxing the relevant service rules relating to age and
reservation and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any further
concession for the purpose of grant of retrospective regularization and for grant
of monetary benefits. This being the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are
not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petitions.
Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order dated : 20.06.2022
Writ Petition Nos.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM., J
gm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment (E2) Department,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Labour,
Chennai - 6.
Writ Petition No.6235, 6236, 6237 and 6238 of 2014
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
