advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, March 16, 2017

service matter - even the regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O.(Rt.) No.505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14.10.2009 and G.O.(2D) No.32 Finance (T.A. 2)Department dated 26.03.2010 was effectedby extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.02.2006 only from the date of Government Orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 and not to part-time employees.As per G.O.(Rt.) No.84 dated 18.06.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service that is 18.06.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No costs.

|REPORTABLE       |

                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3770  OF 2017
                 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17702 of 2014]

SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL
TAXES AND REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND ANR.        ….   Appellants
                                              Versus

SINGAMUTHU                                   ….     Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI J.

Leave granted.

2.    This Civil Appeal arises out of the judgment  of  the  High  Court  of
Judicature at Madras dated 04.07.2012 dismissing the Writ Appeal No.1209  of
2012  thereby  affirming  the  order  of  the  learnedSingleJudge  directing
togrant regularization to the respondent from the date of completion of  ten
years of service with salary and other benefits.

3.    The respondent herein was appointed  as  a  part-time  Masalchithrough
Employment Exchange on 01.04.1989 and continued to work there and  as  part-
time Masalchi attended  the  menial  work  in  the  appellant-department  at
District Registrar Office, Trichy in the State of Tamil Nadu.The  respondent
completed ten years of service as  part-time  Masalchi  on  31.03.1999.   In
G.O. Ms. No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms  (F)  Department,  dated
28.02.2006, the State Government of Tamil Nadu directed  that  the  services
of  the  fulltime  daily  wages  employees   working   in   all   Government
Departments, who have rendered ten years of  service  as  on  01.01.2006  be
regularized by appointing them in the time scale pay of the  post  concerned
subject to their being otherwise qualified for the  post.In  furtherance  to
the  above  Government  Order,  G.O.  (D)  No.659   Commercial   Taxes   and
Registration (M2) Dept. dated 28.12.2006 was issued whereby  the  Government
directed to  fill  vacancies  in  various  categories  in  the  Registration
Department existing  against  the  Direct  Recruitment  through  Tamil  Nadu
Public Service Commission, Employment  Exchange, Commissioner  of  Technical
Education  and  on  Compassionate  Grounds,  etc.  various  categories  were
considered and,interalia, among them 308 posts of watchman were required  to
be filled.

4.    The respondent  herein  approached  the  High  Court  by  filing  W.P.
No.26702 of 2010 praying for regularization of his service on completion  of
ten years of service from the date of his appointment and to appoint him  as
Watchman in the  regular  time  scale.  Vide  order  dated  26.11.2010,  the
learned Single Judge directed  the  Inspector  General  of  Registration  to
extend  the  benefits  of  G.O.  Ms.  No.  22  dated  28.02.2006  and  grant
regularization to the respondent from the date of completion  of  ten  years
of service with salary and other benefits.

5.     Being  aggrieved,  the   appellant-department   filed   writ   appeal
contending that G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 is  applicable  only  to  the
daily wage full-time employees and not applicable to the respondent  as  the
respondent was only a part-time Masalchi. During the pendency  of  the  Writ
Appeal vide proceedings  No.10425/A1/2012  dated  02.07.2012,  the  District
Registrar appointed the respondent and four others as a full-time  employees
in the post of Watchman by regularisingthem and the services  of  respondent
has been placed at Sub-Registrar, Uraiyur, Trichy.  The  Writ  Appeal  filed
by the Department was dismissed by the High Court  affirming  the  order  of
the  Single  Judge.Aggrieved,  the  appellants  have   filed   this   appeal
contending that the High Court has erred in directing regularization of  the
service of the respondent herein from the date of completion  of  ten  years
of his service with salary and other benefits.

6.    Mr. Subramanium Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants  has
assailed the impugned order by contending that there is no provision in  the
relevant  Rules  and  Government  Orders  to  regularise  the   service   of
temporarily appointed part-time Masalchis on  completion  of  ten  years  of
service or otherwise. With regard to G.O. Ms. No.22  dated  28.02.2006,  the
learned senior counsel Mr. Subramonium Prasad argued that  respondent  being
a part-time Masalchi who works only for two-three hours  per  day  does  not
qualify for the benefit, as the Government Order directed regularisation  of
services  of  full-time  daily  wage  employees  only.   The  counsel   also
contended that the High Court failed to note that many  full-time  Masalchis
serving in various departments of  the  State  Government  were  regularised
only as a one-time scheme to bring them under the time scale of  pay  andthe
regularisation scheme was operative  only  from  the  date  of  issuance  of
order.  The counsel further contended that the  High  Court  ought  to  have
taken  note  of  the  fact   that   if   the   regularisation   is   granted
retrospectively to the respondent, in the absence of any law, it  will  have
serious consequences in the administration of the  various  departments  and
huge financial loss will be caused to the State. The counsel brought to  our
notice that 72 persons out of 172 persons of the  appellant-department  have
already filed writ petitions before the High Court which are  still  pending
and if the impugned order is not set-aside,  they  will  also  approach  the
Court for  regularization  with  retrospective  effect  in  which  case  the
financial burden cast upon the appellant would run to crores of  rupees  per
annum and the same would adversely affect the State as well  as  the  public
exchequer. The counsel lastly contended that if the impugned  order  is  not
set aside, it would open flood gate of unwarranted litigations.

7.    Per contra, the learned counsel  for  the  respondent  contended  that
following G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated  28.02.2006,  the  High  Court  had  earlier
allowed claims of many similarly situated employees and  the  order  of  the
High Court was also confirmed by this Court.   The  counsel  thus  contended
that the High Court rightly directed the appellants to  extend  the  benefit
of G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 issued by Personnel  and  Administrative
Reforms Department, to the respondent,  retrospectively  from  the  date  of
completion of ten years  of  respondent’s  service  with  salary  and  other
benefits.  The counsel also contended that the  respondent  should  get  the
benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 505,  Finance  (AA-2)  Department  dated  14.10.2009
andthe respondent sought parity with those 57 part-time  employees,  working
as Masalchi in Treasury  Department,  whose  services  were  regularisedvide
G.O. Ms. No. 32, Finance (Ka. Ka 2) Department dated 26.03.2010.

8.    We have considered the submissions of the  learned  counsel  for  both
the parties and  also  perused  the  impugned  judgment  and  the  documents
available on record.

9.    Part-time or casual employment is meant to  serve  the  exigencies  of
administration.  It is a  settled  principle  of  law  that  continuance  in
service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right  to
seek regularisation in service.  The person who is engaged on  temporary  or
casual basis  is  well  aware  of  the  nature  of  his  employment  and  he
consciouslyaccepted the same at the time of seeking employment.   Generally,
while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be  regularised  or
made permanent, the  courts  are  swayed  by  the  long  period  of  service
rendered by the employees.  However,  this  may  not  be  always  a  correct
approach to adopt especially when the scheme of  regularisation  is  missing
from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial  implications  on
public exchequer.

10.   In the present  case,  it  is  available  on  record  that  the  State
Government vide G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006,  issued  by  the  Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department, directed the services of  daily  wage
employees working in all Departments of Government, who  have  rendered  ten
years of service as on 01.01.2006 to be regularised by  appointing  them  in
the time scale of pay of the post concerned subject to they being  otherwise
qualified for the post. G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel  and  Administrative  Reforms
dated 28.02.2006 reads as under:-

                                  “ABSTRACT
Public Services Employees  working  on  daily  wages-Bringing  into  regular
establishment on completion of ten years of service as on  01.01.2006-Orders
issued.

             PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (F) DEPARTMENT

G.O. Ms. No.22                     Dated 28.02.2006

ORDER:

The Hon’ble Chief Minister had announced during the  Tamil  Nadu  Government
Officials Union and Government Servants and  Teachers  Associations  General
Conference held on 08.02.2006, that the services  of  employees  working  in
various Government Departments on daily wages basis who have completed  more
than 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 will be regularized.

2.    Based on the announcement  made  by  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister  on
08.02.2006, the Government direct that  the  services  of  the  daily  wages
employees working in all Government Departments who have rendered  10  years
of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularized by appointing them  in  the  time
scale of  pay  of  the  post  in  accordance  with  the  service  conditions
prescribed  for  the  post  concerned,  subject  to  their  being  otherwise
qualified for the post.

3.    The Departments of Secretariat may therefore, be  directed  to  pursue
action to regularize the services of the daily wages  employees  working  in
all Government Departments, who have rendered 10  years  of  service  as  on
01.01.2006 as ordered in para 2 above in consultation  with  the  respective
Heads  of  Departments  wherever  necessary.   In  special   cases   wherein
relaxation of rules is required proposal shall be sent to Government.

4.    This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide  its
U.O. No.985/FS/P/2006 dated 28.02.2006.”



11.   In G.O. Ms.No.22 P & AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006, only  full-time  daily
wage employees were directed to be regularized on completion  of  ten  years
of  continuous  service  as  on  01.01.2006.   This  was  clarified  by  the
Government in the Government Order passed subsequently  G.O.Ms.No.74  P  &AR
Dept. dated 27.06.2013 clarifying that  G.O.Ms.No.22  P  &  AR  Dept.  dated
28.02.2006 is applicable only to the full-time  daily  wage  employees,  who
had completed  ten  years  of  continuous  service  as  on  01.01.2006.   In
G.O.Ms.No.74  dated  27.06.2013,  it  was  made  clear  that  the  part-time
employees are not entitled for regularization and that full-time daily  wage
employees, who had completed 10 years of service after 01.01.2006  are  also
not entitled for regularization of  services.        G.O.No.  74,  Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013, reads as follows:
“6) In supersession of the  orders  issued  in  the  Government  Order  read
above,  the  Government  now  issue  revised  orders  on  regularization  of
services of full  time  daily  wage  employees  working  in  all  Government
departments as detailed below:

This Order shall be deemed to have been come into force  with  retrospective
effect from 01.01.2006.



The services of the full  time  daily  wage  employees  who  were  initially
appointed on full time basis in consultation with  the  Employment  Exchange
to discharge the function of the post in the Tamil Nadu  Basic  Service  and
complete 10 (ten) years of service as on  01.01.2006  shall  be  regularized
against regular vacancies in the sanctioned cadre strength.



In cases of relaxation of service rules, the service rule  relating  to  the
educational qualification and mode of recruitment shall not be relaxed.



In cases, where relaxation of rules are involved, monetary benefit shall  be
allowed with effect from the date of issue of orders as per Rule 23  (a)(ii)
of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services;



In cases where relaxation of rules are not involved, monetary benefit  shall
be allowed with effect from the date of regularisation;



(vi) The part-time and casual employees are not entitled to  the  concession
referred to at para (ii) above;



(vii) The services of the full time daily wage employees who have  completed
10 years of service after 01.01.2006 shall not be regularized;



(viii)  All  the  appointing  authorities  should  adhere   to   the   above
instructions scrupulously in  future.  Failing  which,  it  will  be  viewed
seriously and necessary disciplinary action will be initiated as  per  rules
against the person who is responsible for the said lapses.   All  the  Heads
of Departments are directed to ensure that all the above  said  instructions
are followed without fail and lapses if any found,  responsibility  will  be
fixed against them;



(ix) All the proposals for regularization  of  the  services  of  full  time
daily wage employees should be sent to the Government even  in  cases  where
relaxation of rules are not involved.”

In G.O. Ms. No.74, it was thus, made clear that the part-time employees  are
not entitled for regularization and that  full-time  daily  wage  employees,
who  had  completed  ten  years  of  service  as  on  01.01.2006  shall   be
regularized against regular vacancies in the sanctioned post.  It  was  also
made clear that the services of daily wage employees who have completed  ten
years of service after 01.01.2006 are not entitled for regularization.

12.   In the present case,  the  respondent  herein  was  engaged  to  fetch
water, to sweep and other connected menial works for one or two hours  in  a
day as part-time Masalchi.  The post of part-time Masalchi is  not  included
in ClassIV or V of the  Tamil  Nadu  Basic  Service.   Further  a  part-time
Masalchi cannot be treated as equivalent to  the  post  of  Masalchi  (full-
time) basis because the post of part-time Masalchi does not come  under  the
purview of service rules.   The  respondent  herein  was  only  a  part-time
Masalchi and hence the question of applying G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept.  dated
28.02.2006,  which  is  applicable  only  to  the   daily   wage   full-time
employees,does not arise.

13.   G.O.(Rt.)No.84  Commercial  Taxes  and  Registration  (M2)  Department
dated 18.06.2012 was issued,by  which  172  part-time  Masalchis,  who  were
working for more than ten  years  as  part-time  Masalchis  in  Registration
Department were regularized from the date of issuance of G.O. providing  the
grant of monetary benefits from the  date  of  issuance  of  the  Government
Order. In G.O.(Rt) No.84  dated  18.06.2012,  it  was  clearly  stated  that
G.O.Ms.No.22 P &A R Dept. dated 28.02.2006 was applicable only to  full-time
daily wage employees and that the  same  was  not  applicable  to  part-time
Masalchis.  In the said G.O.(Rt.)No.84 dated 18.06.2012, it was  made  clear
that monetary benefits are only from the date of issuance of  the  order  of
regularization.   The  relevant  portion  of  the   said   G.O.(Rt.)   No.84
Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department, reads as under:-

“Registration Department  –  Tamil  Nadu  Basic  Service  –  172  Part  time
Masalchis – Relaxation of Rules and Appointing them as full  time  Employees
in the post of watchmen in  Time  Scale  Pay  and  Regularisation  of  their
services – Orders issued.

              Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Department
G.O. (Rt) No.84                         Dated: 18.06.2012

Based on the Directions of the Hon’ble  High  Court,  the  School  Education
Department and the Treasuries and Accounts Department under the  control  of
the Finance Department have appointed two Full-time Masalchis and  57  Full-
time Masalchis, respectively, in regular time scale of pay  and  regularized
their services from the date of issue of the orders. In  compliance  to  the
orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the services  of  6  Part  time  Masalchis
were appointed in this Department and regularized their  services  from  the
date  of  issue  of  the  orders  in  the  reference  3rd  and  5th   cited.
Considering the Part-time Masalchis  working  for  a  long  period  in  this
Department and most of  them  had  completed  the  age  of  40  and  certain
employees have completed 50 years of age, it is not possible  to  seek  jobs
from outside and the employees were repeatedly  sending  representations  to
regularize their services, on a  sympathetic  consideration,  the  Inspector
General of Registration sent a proposal to the  Government  to  appoint  the
Part-time Masalchis in the  post  of  Watchman  by  relaxing  the  necessary
provisions in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Basic  Service  from  the
date  of  issue  of  the  orders….…The  Government  has  decided  that,  the
remaining 172 Part  time  Masalchis,  mentioned  in  the  Annexure,  may  be
appointed in Time  Scale  Pay,  in  the  existing  vacancy  of  watchmen  by
relaxing  the  Rule  3  (A)  (Community  Rotation)  and  Rule  5  (1)   (Age
Qualification) and the services of  the  Part-masalchi  be  regularized  and
they may be awarded monetary benefit from the date of issue of the order…”


In pursuance of the above said Government Order and vide proceedings of  the
District Registrar, the respondent herein appointed  as  full-time  employee
in the post of Watchman on 02.07.2012 and has been placed at  Sub-Registrar,
Uraiyur, Trichy.  As per G.O. Ms.No.84, the respondent  can  claim  monetary
benefits only from the date of issuance  of  Government  Order  regularising
his services and not earlier.

14.   In a similar issue, concerning part-time sweepers, the State of  Tamil
Naduhas filed an appeal before this Court, and those  appeals  were  allowed
by this Court byjudgment dated 21.02.2014 inSecretaryto  Government,  School
Education Department, Chennai vs. Thiru. R. Govindasamy and Others (2014)  4
SCC 769. After referring to various judgments on this issue,  in  paras  (5)
to (7), this Court held as under:-

“5. The issue involved here remains restricted as to  whether  the  services
of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the High Court  to  be
regularised. The issue is no more res integra.

6. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 this  Court  held  as
under: (SCC p. 40, para 48)
“48. … There is no fundamental right in those  who  have  been  employed  on
daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they  have
a right to be absorbed in service. As has been  held  by  this  Court,  they
cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular  appointment  could
be made only by making appointments  consistent  with  the  requirements  of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The  right  to  be  treated  equally
with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be  extended  to  a
claim for equal treatment with  those  who  were  regularly  employed.  That
would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on  to  claim
a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been  selected
in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.”

7. In Union of India v. A.S. Pillai (2010) 13 SCC 448 this Court dealt  with
the issue of regularisation of part-time employees  and  the  Court  refused
the relief on the  ground  that  part-timers  are  free  to  get  themselves
engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from  working  elsewhere  when
they are  not  working  for  the  authority/employer.  Being  the  part-time
employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations  which
govern  and  control  the  regularly  appointed  staff  of  the  department.
Therefore, the  question  of  giving  them  equal  pay  for  equal  work  or
considering their case for regularisation would not arise.”


15.   In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others(2011)  2  SCC
429, this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of  irregular  or
part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and  thisCourt  clearly
laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to  seek  regularisation
as they do not work against any sanctioned posts.  It  was  also  held  that
part-time employees in government-run institutions  can  in  no  case  claim
parity in salary with regular employees of the government on  the  principle
of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment  is  as
under:

“12. We may at the outset refer to the  following  well  settled  principles
relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant  in  the  context  of
these appeals:

(i) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of  the  Constitution
will not  issue  directions  for  regularization,  absorption  or  permanent
continuance,  unless  the  employees  claiming   regularization   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 16 should  be  scrupulously
followed and courts should not  issue  a  direction  for  regularization  of
services of an employee which would be violative of  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 regularized, back door  entries,  appointments  contrary  to
the  constitutional  scheme  and/or  appointment  of  ineligible  candidates
cannot be regularized.

(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 regularization, if he is not working  against
a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing  any
order of regularization in the absence of a legal right.

(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization  with  a  cut-off
date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had  put  in  a  specified
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  regularization  as  they
are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot  be  a  direction
for  absorption,  regularization  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.

See: Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC  1, M.  Raja  v.
CEERI Educational Society, Pilani 2006 (12) SCC 636, S.C. Chandra  v.  State
of Jharkhand  2007 (8) SCC 279, Kurukshetra Central  Co-operative  Bank  Ltd
v. Mehar Chand 2007 (15) SCC 680, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand   2008
10 SCC 1.”              (emphasis added)


16.   The learned Single Judge of the High Court, while  allowing  the  writ
filed by the respondent extended the benefit of  the  said  G.O.  Ms.  No.22
dated 28.02.2006 and directed the  appellants  to  grant  regularisation  of
respondent’s service from the date of completion of  ten  years  of  service
with salary and other benefits. The learned Judge failed  to  take  note  of
the fact that as per G.O.  Ms.No.  22  dated  28.02.2006,  the  services  of
employees working in various government departments on full-time daily  wage
basis, who have completed more than ten years of continuous  service  as  on
01.01.2006  will  be  regularised  and  not  part-time  Masalchis  like  the
respondent herein. In G.O.Ms. No. 84 dated 18.06.2012, the  Government  made
it clear that G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 is applicable  only  to  full-
time daily  wagers  and  not  to  part-time  daily  wagers.  Respondent  was
temporarily appointed part-time  worker  as  per  Tamil  Nadu  Finance  Code
Volume (2) Appendix (5) and his appointment was completely  temporary.   The
respondent being appointed as part-time Masalchi, cannot compare himself  to
full-time daily wagers and seek benefit of  G.O.Ms.No.22  dated  28.02.2006.
The Single Judge also failed to consider that the Government did  not  grant
regularisation of services of any part-time employee on  completion  of  ten
years of his service as envisaged under the G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006.

17.    The  learned  Single  Judge  erred  in  extending  the   benefit   of
G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the  respondent  that  too  retrospectively
from the date of completion of ten years of service of the  respondent.  The
respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten  years  of  service
on 31.03.1999.  As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel  for  the
appellants, if the respondent is to be  given  monetary  benefits  from  the
date of completion of ten years of service, that  is  from  01.04.1999  till
the date of his regularization that is 18.06.2012, the financial  commitment
to the State would  be  around  Rs.10,85,113/-  (approximately)towards  back
wages apart from pension  which  will  have  a  huge  impact  on  the  State
exchequer.  That  apart,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant
submitted that in respect of  Registration  Department,  about  172  persons
were  regularized  under  various  G.Os.  and  if  the  impugned  order   is
sustained, the Government will have to pay  the  back  wages  to  all  those
persons from the date of completion of ten years in service  and  this  will
have a huge  impact  on  the  State  exchequer.  Since  the  impugned  order
directing regularization of the respondent from the date  of  completion  of
their ten years would  adversely  affect  the  State  exchequer  in  a  huge
manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also.

18.   It is pertinent to note that even the  regularisation  of  services  of
part-time employees vide G.O.(Rt.) No.505 Finance  (AA-2)  Department  dated
14.10.2009 and G.O.(2D) No.32 Finance (T.A.  2)Department  dated  26.03.2010
was effectedby extending the benefit of  G.O.  dated  28.02.2006  only  from
the date of Government Orders and not from the date of completion  of  their
ten years of service. The Division Bench  also  failed  to  take  note  that
G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only  to  full-time
daily wage employees and who had completed ten years of  continuous  service
as on 01.01.2006 and not  to  part-time  employees.As  per  G.O.(Rt.)  No.84
dated 18.06.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary  benefits  only
from the date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service  that
is 18.06.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the  order
of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent  from  the  date  of
completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same  is  liable  to
be set aside.

19.   In the result, the impugned order is set  aside  and  this  appeal  is
allowed. No costs.

                                                             …….…………...………J.
                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                               …………….……………J.
                                             [R. BANUMATHI]
      New Delhi;
      March 07, 2017

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.