Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Writ on hand has been filed to quash the order declining the request of the writ petitioner to grant retrospective regularisation from the date of his initial appointment.

2. The petitioner joined service as Fisheries Engineering Supervisor in Thanjavur District, Fish Farmers Development Agency on 04.04.1977. The said post was re-designated as Junior Engineer. The writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2010.

6. The writ petitioner admittedly retired from service on 30.09.2010. The first Writ Petition filed by him was in the year 2011, after his retirement. An employee seeking a relief of retrospective regularisation from the year 1977 by filing a Writ Petition in the year 2011 itself could not be entertained. The petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent on 02.02.2011. Thus, the first representation sent by the writ petitioner as per the Writ Petition filed by him was on 02.02.2011 after a lapse of about nineteen years from the regularisation of his services granted in G.O.(3D)No.4, dated 28.8.1992. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the year 1977 in the Agency. His services were regularised in the Government Department in the year 1992 through G.O.(3D) No.4, dated 28.08.1992. He served in the Department and retired from service in the year 2010. He filed a Writ Petition in the year 2011. This Court directed the authorities to consider the claim for retrospective regularisation based on his representation. The said representation was considered and the first respondent Government rejected the same through the impugned order dated 22.12.2014.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. Regularisation or permanent absorption can never be claimed as a matter of right. Regularisation is to be granted strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. All appointments are to be made in consonance with the recruitment Rules in force. Equal opportunities in public appointment is a Constitutional mandate. The equality clause enunciated must be scrupulously followed while undertaking the process of selection for appointment to the public services. Thus, the temporary services rendered cannot be a ground to regularise the services with retrospective effect. That apart, the petitioner was appointed in an agency which is not a Government Department. Thus, the Government by way of concession absorbed these agency employees in the Fisheries Department through G.O.(3D)No.4, dated 28.08.1992. A perusal of the Government Order reveals that the Service Rules concerned, were relaxed for the benefit of the employees who worked in the agencies. When the relevant Service Rules were relaxed and the benefit of regularisation and absorption was granted, the petitioner cannot seek any further concession by filing a Writ Petition before the Court. Thus, the benefit of permanent absorption granted to the petitioner itself was a concession, which was granted by relaxing the relevant Rules in exercise of the powers conferred on the Government under Rule 48 of the General Rules. Thus, the Court cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis extend further concession by granting retrospective regularisation. Principles of equality cannot be complied in respect of an illegality. When the initial appointment were not made in accordance with Recruitment Rules, then there cannot be any equality in respect of grant of regularisation. Therefore, by citing an illegality or grant of relaxation as a special case, the High Court cannot extend the relief which is otherwise not in accordance with law in force.