Madras High Court
S.Kumarasamy vs The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on 12 October, 2020
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014
1.S.Kumarasamy
2.E.Kasirajan
3.P.Kanagaraj
4.S.Murugan
5.P.Saravanan
6.S.Sakthivel
7.M.Murugesan
8.P.Selvam
9.K.Gomathinayagam
10.R.Paramasivan
11.R.Gopalakrishnan
12.M.Maharajan
13.V.Vijayalakshmi
14.V.Velmurugan
15.S.Ramakrishnan
16.S.Dhanushkodi Arumugam
17.S.Thangavel
18.B.Devaraj
19.R.Manoharan
20.P.Kumar
21.S.Babukrishnan
22.P.Karuppiah
23.G.S.Murugan
24.M.Muthupandi
25.S.Mariammal
26.P.Pitchumani ... Petitioners
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014
-Vs-
The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
rep., by its Registrar,
Abishekapatti-627 012
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent University
to regularize the services of the petitioners notionally with effect from
02.11.2002 and consequently, to direct the respondent to place the
petitioners under “the Old Pension Scheme” as per the University
Syndicate resolution dated 08.09.2008 implemented the same vide
proceedings in Memo.No.MSU/R/Estt/Admn/2008, dated 30.09.2008
within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthik
for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent University to regularize the services of the petitioners notionally with effect from 02.11.2002 and consequently, to direct the 2/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014 respondent to place the petitioners under “the Old Pension Scheme” as per the University Syndicate resolution, dated 08.09.2008 implemented the same vide proceedings in Memo.No.MSU/R/Estt/Admn/2008, dated 30.09.2008.
2.All the petitioners joined in the respondent University as NMR employee on daily wages basis during the year 1999. The writ petitioners were continuing as daily wages employees and subsequently, consolidated salary was paid to these employees. The petitioners 1 to 12 were absorbed and appointed as Office Assistant with regular time scale of pay on 22.08.2008. Petitioners 13 and 14 were absorbed and appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 2008. Petitioners 15 to 17 were absorbed and appointed as Drivers on 07.03.2008. Petitioner No.18 was absorbed and appointed as Electrician (Helper) on 04.03.2008. Petitioners 19 and 20 were absorbed and appointed as Fish farm Technician and Technician on 07.09.2007. Petitioner No.20 has been posted as Assistant Professor in the department of Center for Information Technology and Engineering from 19.12.2009. Petitioners 20 to 28 and 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014 21 were absorbed and appointed on 13.11.2004, 24.4.2006, 24.07.2006 and 01.07.2008 as Scavengers.
3.The grievances of the writ petitioners are that, though they were appointed in the regular time scale of pay in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009, their services are not regularised from their respective date of initial appointment as NMR, because of the delay in grant of regularization, the services rendered by the writ petitioners are affected and they will not get pensionary benefits for the period, in which, they served as NMR. Thus, the petitioners have approached this Court for the relief of retrospective regularisation and for grant of Old Pension Scheme as their initial appointment as NMR was prior to 01.04.2003.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent disputed the contentions by stating that, all the appointments were irregular appointments and made not in consonance to the University Service Regularization and Recruitment Rules in force. In view of the fact that, the appointment of these petitioners were illegal and not in 4/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014 consonance with the Rules in force. University has initiated steps to dispense with all the illegal appointments so as to ensure the appointments are made in accordance with the Rules in force. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that, the University is in the process of initiating action against all the illegal and irregular appointments made contrary to the Service Regulations of the University. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim any further benefit for retrospective regularization, which is impermissible.
5.Regularisation of irregular appointments can never be done by the authority competent. When the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled the principles that, all appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules and any irregular or illegal appointments would confer any right on the persons to claim confirmation of services or regularization. This Court also dealt an elaborate judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in respect of the very same university, passed orders on 02.03.2018 in W.P(MD).No.2626 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.14664 of 2013 and the relevant paragraphs are 5/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014 extracted hereunder:
//////////
6.In view of the fact that, regularization cannot be granted in violation of the Rules and retrospective regularisation is also impermissible. In view of the fact that, all the petitioners were appointed as NMR on daily wages basis, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted.
7.The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that the actions are initiated against all the illegal and irregular appointments and such process is also to be concreted, in order to provide equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates to participate in the open competition process by following the constitutional Scheme of appointment and in order to upheld the constitutional philosophy and ethos.
8.The learned counsel for the respondent further informed this Court that all such irregular and illegal resolutions earlier passed are to be recalled and suitable actions are initiated in this regard. 6/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014
9.In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, the petitioner are not entitled to get the relief for retrospective regularisation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
12.10.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmk
7/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
rmk
W.P.(MD).No.21024 of 2014
12.10.2020
8/8
http://www.judis.nic.in