Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: retrospective regularisation in T.S.Ramesh Babu vs The Secretary To Government on 22 February, 2018Matching Fragments
3.Based on the Government order cited supra, the services of the writ petitioner was regularised in proceedings dated 02.06.2006. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is now working as permanent employee in the time scale of pay.
4.The grievances of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed long back from the year 1995 onwards. His service was regularised only with effect from 2006 and therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking retrospective regularisation of service.
6.The case of the writ petitioner was considered based on the proposal submitted by the authorities concerned and the Government also granted the benefit of regularisation by way of concession in G.O.Ms.No.21. Based on the said Government Order the services of the writ petitioner had already been regularised and now he is working as a permanent employee. The petitioner having availed the concession of regularisation by virtue of the Government order, cannot now claim any further concession by way of filing the present writ petition. When there is no legal right established, even for the purpose of grant of permanent absorption, now the petitioner cannot claim retrospective regularisation after getting the benefit of regularisation by way of concession by virtue of the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 23.02.2006.
7.This being the factum, this Court is of an opinion that the claim of retrospective regularisation, as contrary to the legal principles settled by the constitution bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others .vs. Umadevi(3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, cannot be granted and in respect of the writ petitioner the benefit of regularisation was already granted as a one time concession. Thus there cannot be any further concession in respect of his claim for retrospective regularisation.
8.In this view of the matter, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has not established any legal right for grant of retrospective regularisation and accordingly the writ petition is devoid of merits, hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
To:
1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort, St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.