Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the claim of the writ petitioners were considered with reference to the orders in force and accordingly, they are regularised with effect from 28.08.2007. The claim of the http://www.judis.nic.in writ petitioners for retrospective regularisation cannot be considered in view of the fact that during the relevant point of time there were no vacancies and sanctioning of post was not granted by the Government. Thus, the writ petitioners now cannot claim retrospective regularisation in the sanctioned post. In view of the facts and circumstances, the orders impugned are in accordance with the Government Orders and there is no infirmity.

6.This apart, admittedly, the writ petitioners were engaged as daily wage employees and were continuing in the services. As such, the Government by way of a policy decision extended concession to these daily wage employees and on completion of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in years of service, they were brought under the regular employees and their services were regularised. Granting regularisation itself was a concession extended by the Government. When the writ petitioners had already enjoyed the concession, they cannot seek retrospective regularisation with effect from the date on which they were engaged as daily wage employees. In the event of allowing such claims, the Government may not be in a position to sanction the posts with retrospective effect. The same would have huge financial implications also.

7.Whenever the monetary or service benefits are granted with retrospective effect, Courts are bound to consider the financial implications also. In the event of granting such retrospective regularisation, the Courts must be slow in considering those cases as it will affect the interest of the public at large as well as the tax payers money in this regard to be protected. This being the principles to be followed, the retrospective regularisation from the date on which the writ petitioners were engaged as daily wage employees is impermissible in law.

8.The writ petitioners were admittedly not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. The initial http://www.judis.nic.in appointment of the writ petitioners were irregular and the procedure of selection was not followed. Thus, the writ petitioners had entered into service through back door and therefore, they cannot seek the benefit of retrospective regularisation from the date on which they were initially appointed. When the initial appointment of the writ petitioners is not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force, the benefit of retrospective regularisation cannot be considered in view of the legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, at Paragraphs 5,10,12,13,14,20 and 43 to 50, which reads as under: