Madras High Court
Arumparthapurampet vs The Chairman Prtc/Secretary on 3 July, 2025
WP No. 17139 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 17139 of 2025
1. P.Saraswathi
D/o.Patchapillai,
No.8, Kuber Street, Pakkamudaiyanpet,
Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008
2.A.Saratha
W/o.Sivaraj, No.34, 12th Cross Street,
Vennisamy Nagar, G.N.Palayam,
Puducherry-605 110
3.R.Arulmozhi
W/o.Bhavanandhane,
No.54, East Street, Bahour,
Puducherry-607 402
4.D.K.Subisha
W/o.Vijilesh,
No.14/38 Vazhayil Peedikayil,
Pandakkal, Mahe, Puducherry-673 310
5.L.Dussol Vinolin
D/o.Dussol Lourdenadin,
No.21, Vivekananda Street,
Pudhu Nagar, Oulgaret,
Puducherry-605 010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm )
WP No. 17139 of 2025
6.R.Vidjea
W/o.Rajasekaran, No.50 A/1 3rd Cross
Perumal Street, Anandharangapillai
Nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008
7.Buddaraju Sandhya Rani
D/o.Buddaraju Suryanarayana Raju,
Rajiv Nagar, Near Old Age Home,
Yanam-533 464
8.S.K.Maheswari
W/o.Sivachanemougame,
No.6, North Street, New Saram,
Puducherry-605 013
9.S.A.Anitha Mary
W/o.Veerappan, No.16, Illango Street,
Shanthi Nagar Lawspet,
Puducherry-605 008
10.M.Shanthi
W/o.Buvanesh, No.56, 3rd Cross Street,
JJ Nagar, Moolakulam,
Puducherry-605 010
11.A.Angamuthu
W/o.Palanivel,
No.17, Manmathan Koil Street,
Kilnjeimedu, Thalatheru Post,
Karaikal-609 605
12.V.Velviji Lebineus
W/o.Pandian, No.20,
Mariamman Koil Street,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm )
WP No. 17139 of 2025
Arumparthapurampet,
Puducherry-605 010
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chairman PRTC/Secretary
(Transport)
Puducherry Road Transport
Corporation Ltd, Puducherry-605 001
2.The Managing Director
Puducherry Road Transport
Corporation Ltd, Raja Nagar,
Puducherry-605 013
Respondent(s)
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 of the
impugned order in No.305/PRTC/Admn/PF/2015/200 dated 07.03.2025 passed
by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to
regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of appointment
i.e..7.10.2010 and 06.12.2010 and consequently direct the respondents to pay
arrears of amount from 07.10.2010 and 06.12.2010 within the time frame that
may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner(s): M/s. S.Lakshmi Narayanan
For Respondent(s): M/s.R.Sreedhar
AGP (Pondicherry)
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the impugned order in No.305/PRTC/Admn/PF/2015/200 dated 07.03.2025 passed by the 2nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of appointment i.e..7.10.2010 and 06.12.2010 and consequently direct the respondents to pay arrears of amount from 07.10.2010 and 06.12.2010 within the time frame.
2. Heard Mr.S.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 24.09.2021, the respondents issued a request to the Employment exchange Puducherry, seeking a list of eligible female candidates for the post of Lady Conductors. It is the further submission that thereafter, there was also a publication in Dhina Malar daily dated 04.10.2010 calling for the post of Lady conductors. It is the submission of the petitioners that they were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Secondly, upon following all the procedures and after conducting interview, they appointed the petitioners as Lady Conductors on contract basis since 07.10.2010 and 06.10.2010 respectively. It is the further submission of the petitioners that their initial appointment of six months is extendable by the orders of the respondents and that they have been serving as a conductor for more than 15 years from the date of their initial appointment. It is the specific submission of the petitioners that they have been appointed on a sanctioned post. However, the petitioners' request for regularisation rejected on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 the ground of WP.No.29364 of 2024, whereas the said writ petition was dismissed for default. It is the further submission of the petitioners that according to the Recruitment Rules of Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Limited, the recruitment can be done by absorption of Conductors on daily rated basis with 3 years of continuous service. Hence, would contend that the impugned order is in contravention to the settled legal principles and prayed to interfered with the same.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis even in their appointment letter dated 07.10.2010, the conditions of service has been stipulated by and in which, it has been categorically stated that they have appointed only on consolidated payment and that they cannot seek any claim for a regular appointment. Therefore, would contend that having agreed for the conditions stipulated in the appointment order, now the petitioners cannot turn around and claim for regularisation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
6. This is a case where the petitioners to be regularized or not is the issue to be decided. The main contention put forth by the learned Government Advocate is on the basis of the pendency of the writ petition and the conditions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 stipulated in the appointment letter dated 07.10.2010. As far as the pendency of the writ petition is concerned, according to the petitioners, the same is no way connected with the prayer sought for in the present writ petition. In spite of that, it is the submission of the petitioners that vide order dated 03.10.2024, the said writ petition also becomes dismissed for default. Therefore, the 1st obstacle for the respondents to regularize the petitioners viz., the alleged pendency of the writ petition become vanished in view of its dismissal.
7. Coming to the 2nd respondent of conditions stipulated in the appointment letter, no doubt there is a stipulation in the appointment letter dated 07.10.2010 as to the contractual appointment and the conditions imposing against the petitioner not to claim any regular appoint. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to look at the pleadings of the respondents. In the counter statement, the 3rd respondent had categorically admitted that the petitioners were officially sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that they have conducted a full fledged recruitment procedure in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. It is the further submission that their recruitment was conducted in a transparent manner. For ready reference, it is relevant to extract paragraph 11 of the counter statement:-
“11. I admit the contentions stated in para 9 that the appointments of the petitioners were legitimate and transparent and the names of the petitioners were officially sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Puducherry based on the Seniority. I submit that the Puducherry Road Transport Corporation never encourage unfair or back door entry recruitment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 Therefore, all the recruitments have been conducted transparently and ethically without prejudice to the right and claim of any workers. Further, it is inappropriate to compare the appointment of Junior Tradesman though they were appointed in the same year as that of the petitioners as the selection process was through proper notification and the recruitment itself was for the regular post and not as that of the post of conductor. As stated earlier, with the pending litigations it was not possible for the corporation to recruit drivers and conductors to be recruited on the regular basis. Therefore, there is no question of disparity, unfair treatment, gender bias etc as alleged by the petitioners.”
8. From the above counter statement, it is apparent that the respondents had followed all the procedures so as to satisfy equality clause stipulated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to refer that they have also issued paper publication on 04.10.2010, which is annexed in the typed set of papers. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' continuous service from 07.10.2010 till today.
9. At this juncture, this Court would like to refer the Rules relied by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Schedule of Recruitment Rules annexed along with the Service Rules of Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Limited, in which Clause 10 of the Schedule stated as follows:-
10.Method of recruitment whether by direct : Absorption failing which by direct
recruitment or by promotion or by recruitment
deputation filled up by various methods.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm )
WP No. 17139 of 2025
10. According to the above Rule, they can recruit the persons by way of an absorption. Here, in this case, it is not in serious dispute that the petitioners have been in continuous service for more than 15 years. If at all there is any obstruction for the respondents to regularize the petitioners, it could only be the equality class. As already observed, in order to satisfy the equality class, they have also issued a paper publication calling upon all the similarly placed persons to apply for the post. Therefore, there cannot be any prejudice for the similarly placed persons who have not been either selected or not shown any interest to apply. In this connection, this Court deems it appropriate to refer the recent judgment of this Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically analysed as to how the temporary employee is being exploited under the stipulations made in the appointment letter. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 19 to 22:-
“19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.”
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 26 has categorically held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1] has been weaponized against the employees, who have ben rendered indispensable service over decades. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 petitioners are in continuous service since 2010 till date and that the recruitment process was in accordance with the Service Rules, after paper publication and on receiving candidates through Employment Exchange. Apart from that, they have appointed only in the sanctioned posts. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 is liable to be quashed.
12. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, with all consequential benefits within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
03.07.2025 (2/2) kmi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To
1.The Chairman PRTC/Secretary (Transport) Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd, Puducherry-605 001
2.The Managing Director Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd, Raja Nagar, Puducherry-605 013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm ) WP No. 17139 of 2025 C.KUMARAPPAN J.
kmi WP No. 17139 of 2025 03-07-2025 (2/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/07/2025 08:39:09 pm )