Madras High Court
S.Annalakshmi vs The Vice Chancellor on 30 June, 2022
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
S.Annalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Vice Chancellor,
Pondicherry University,
Pondicherry – 605 014.
2.The Deputy Registrar [Admn.]
Pondicherry University,
Pondicherry – 605 014. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order
of the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.PU/Estt.NT5/2014-15/136 dated 07.08.2014
and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to
regularize the service of the petitioner from 14.04.1990 with all attendant
benefits.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Balamurugane
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
retrospective regularization from the date of initial appointment as Part time
Sweeper with effect from 14.04.1990 is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
2.The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Part time Sweeper on
14.04.1990. The petitioner was continuously working as part time employee
and finally the respondents considered the case of the writ petitioner and
granted the benefit of regularization of service with effect from 09.01.2008.
Thereafter, the petitioner is allowed to continue as a regular employee in the
time scale of pay. The petitioner submitted an application for retrospective
regularization from the date of his initial appointment as Part time Sweeper,
i.e. 14.04.1990. The said application was rejected by the respondents on the
ground that as per the orders of the High Court dated 02.02.2009 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
W.P.No.1939 of 2009 the representation submitted by the Contract
employees were considered and examined with reference to the University
Grants Commission Regulations. The UGC in letter dated 29.10.2001
directed that no Group D posts are to be filled up in the Universities. Thus
the claim of the petitioner was not considered. However, the other benefits
were granted to the employees on par with the regular employees. The said
decision was communicated to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated
27.03.2009 itself. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed after a lapse
of six years from the date of communication of the letter dated 27.03.2009.
Therefore, the issue regarding the retrospective regularization was
considered by the University and reply was sent to the petitioner on
27.03.2009.
3.That apart, the petitioner was appointed as Part time Sweeper on
14.04.1990. Regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted in
violation of the Service Rules. In the present case, the services of the writ
petitioner was regularized in the year 2008 by way of concession in view of
the fact that the initial appointment was not in accordance with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
recruitment Rules in force. Thus, the regularization granted in favour of he
petitioner itself is a concession extended and regarding the part time
services, the benefits of regularization cannot be granted in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Tamil
Nadu. School Education Department, Chennai vs. R.Govindasamy reported
in 2014 (4) SCC 769. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the
following observations:
7.This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal
& Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of
regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all
possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles
relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the
context of the issues involved therein. The same are as
under:
“8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent
continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a
regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in
an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant
posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should
not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an
employee which would be violative of the
constitutional scheme. While something that is
irregular for want of compliance with one of the
elements in the process of selection which does not go
to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door
entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional
scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates
cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary
or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him
any right to be absorbed into service, as such service
would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad
hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years,
let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle
such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not
working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and
sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of
regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for
regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
number of years of service and continuing in
employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to
others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off
date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be
applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a
direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for
successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek
regularisation as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for
absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of
part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in
government-run institutions cannot claim parity in
salary with regular employees of the Government on
the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full
time, seek parity in salary with government employees.
The right to claim a particular salary against the State
must arise under a contract or under a statute.”
(Emphasis added)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
4.In view of the fact that the Part time services cannot be regularised,
this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity as such in respect of the
order passed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it
is made clear that the petitioner is eligible for the benefits on par with the
other regular employees from the date of her regular appointment. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.06.2022
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes
cse
To
1.The Vice Chancellor,
Pondicherry University,
Pondicherry – 605 014.
2.The Deputy Registrar [Admn.]
Pondicherry University,
Pondicherry – 605 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
cse
W.P.No.6731 of 2015
30.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
