Madras High Court
K.Premabai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 September, 2022
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
W.P.No.5621 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.5621 of 2014
K.Premabai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government,
Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Director of Public Libraries,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
4.The District Library Officer,
Chennai District,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in
pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.5621 of 2014
G.O.Ms.No.74 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated
27.06.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of completion of 10
years of service from the date of initial appointment on 03.06.1995 with all
monetary and other consequential service benefits including the arrears of
pay in the revised scale.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Prem Narayan
For Respondents : Mr.C. Sathish,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner herein is a part-time sweeper who seeks for regularisation of service.
2. When similarly placed part-time sweepers from the same respondent/Department had approached this Court seeking for such regularisation, the issue came to be finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Secretary Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. Thiru. R. Govindaswamy & others' reported in '(2014) 4 SCC 769', in the following manner:-
“5. The issue involved here remains restricted as to whether the services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.No.5621 of 2014 the High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra.
In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1806, this Court held as under:
“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.”
6. In Union of India & Ors. v. A.S. Pillai & Ors., (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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.No.5621 of 2014
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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.No.5621 of 2014 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 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)
8. The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant has already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the respondents which stood regularised should not be affected.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.No.5621 of 2014
3. A similar view was also taken in the case of 'Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department & another Vs. A.Singamuthu' wherein, the ratio laid down in the case of 'Secretary Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. Thiru. R. Govindaswamy & others' supra was followed. Thus, the claim of the petitioner who is a part-time sweeper, seeking for regularisation, cannot be considered in view of the aforesaid decisions.
4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
21.09.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Sni https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.No.5621 of 2014 To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
3.The Director of Public Libraries, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
4.The District Library Officer, Chennai District, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P.No.5621 of 2014 M.S.RAMESH,J.
Sni W.P.No.5621 of 2014 21.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8