Madras High Court
S.Thirumoorthy vs The Secretary To Government on 6 June, 2022
WP No.1614 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06-06-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.1614 of 2014
S.Thirumoorthy .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Pollachi Municipality,
Pollachi – 642 001,
Coimbatore District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
the records relating to third respondent's proceedings
Na.Ka.No.H1/11539/99/H1 dated 26.05.2006 and quash the same in so far
as regularisation of the service of the petitioner is concerned from the date
of order and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularise the
service of the petitioner in time scale of pay after completion of one year
service from the date of his appointment made pursuant to and in
accordance with G.O.Ms.No.71 M.A. & W.S. Department, dated 05.05.1998
with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Parameshwari for
Mr.M.Muthappan.
For Respondents-1 and 2 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,
Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondent-3 : Ms.Selvi George
ORDER
The order granting regular time scale of pay to the writ petitioner with
effect from 23.02.2006 in proceedings dated 26.05.2006, is under challenge
in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Badli Sanitary worker in the
third respondent-Municipality in the year 1986 through Employment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
Exchange. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as
consolidated pay employee as per G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 05.05.1998. The
petitioner was continued in service for more than 10 years. Though the
petitioner is eligible for regularisation, it was not granted and the time scale
was also denied. In the meantime, the first respondent issued
G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
dated 23.02.2006 to regularise the services of the employees who had
worked on the consolidated pay and NMR on daily wages in Municipalities,
Corporation and Grade-III Municipalities. The third respondent in
proceedings dated 26.05.2006, regularised the services of the writ petitioner
and brought the writ petitioner in regular time scale of pay from the date of
order on 26.05.2006. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present
writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
writ petitioner was initially appointed as temporary employee on
10.11.1999. Therefore, he is entitled to be regularised from the date of
initial appointment. However, the benefit of regularisation and regular time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
scale of pay was granted to the petitioner only with effect from 23.02.2006,
which is not in accordance with law.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2 objected the said contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner by stating that the temporary employees who were not
appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force, are not
eligible for regularisation. The Government took a decision by taking a
sympathetic view and granted the benefit of regularisation to all the
employees who were temporarily appointed and working for more than 10
years and therefore, such a concession cannot be granted with retrospective
effect, which would cause financial implication to the State Exchequer.
5. Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. The benefit of regularisation is to be granted strictly in
accordance with the Rules in force. Persons appointed irregularly or
illegally are not entitled for the benefit of regularisation or permanent
absorption.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
6. During the relevant period of time, the Government had taken a
decision and granted the benefit of regularisation considering the length of
service rendered by those temporary employees who were not appointed in
accordance with the Rules in force. Therefore, the concession extended to
those employees cannot be further extended for the purpose of granting
retrospective regularisation from the date of initial appointment. The
Government itself has extended the benefit of regularisation in respect of
those temporary employees on completion of their 10 years of service and
regular time scale of pay was granted from the date of issuance of
Government Order in force. In view of the fact that the benefit of
regularisation and time scale of pay was granted by way of concession, the
Court cannot extend such a concession by granting retrospective
regularisation and in the event of granting any such relief that would result
in huge monetary loss to the State Exchequer and therefore, the claim of the
writ petitioner cannot be considered in this writ petition.
7. Beyond the merits involved in the present case, the order impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
regularising the services of the writ petitioner and granting the time scale of
pay was issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 26.05.2006 and
the present writ petition was filed on 08.01.2014 i.e., after a lapse of about 8
years from the date of passing of the impugned order. Thus, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches also.
8. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary to
Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
vs. V.Marisamy [2017 (3) CTC 673], rejected the claim of the employees
for retrospective regularisation. However, the Full Bench in Review Petition
allowed the claim of the employees for retrospective regularisation. It is
brought to the notice of this Court that the said judgment of the Full Bench
in Review Petition was taken by way of an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in SLP No.21935 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 and an
interim stay was granted. The said appeal is pending before the Apex Court.
In view of the interim stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
the benefit of the order passed by the Full Bench in Review Petition cannot
be extended to the writ petitioner. Further, the writ petition itself has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
filed after a lapse of about 8 years.
9. Under these circumstances, if at all the benefits are extended by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the pending appeal, it is for the petitioner
to approach the Competent Authorities thereafter. Thus, it is made clear that
the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition, cannot be granted as
the issues are subjudiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The
petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities after disposal of the appeal
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
10. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed
of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
06-06-2022
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.1614 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Pollachi Municipality,
Pollachi – 642 001,
Coimbatore District. WP 1614 of 2014
06-06-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
