Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ appeal filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against an order of a single judge in W.P.No.32673 of 2018, which directed regularisation of the respondent, M.Mohan, as a driver from the date of his initial appointment. The respondent was appointed as a driver on daily wage basis by the District Collector, Namakkal, vide proceedings dated 26.11.2001, through the District Employment Exchange. The post of driver was a sanctioned post at that time. In 2015, the government sanctioned 71 posts of drivers in the Revenue Department vide G.O.(1D).No.279 dated 23.06.2015. The state argued that regularisation should be effective only from the date of this government order. However, the writ court rejected this contention, holding that since the respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post through a recognised mode of recruitment (Employment Exchange), regularisation should be from the date of initial appointment. The division bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender, upheld the single judge's order, dismissing the appeal. The court reasoned that the initial appointment was not illegal and the respondent had continued in service for a long time, thus the benefit of regularisation from the initial date should not be denied.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Daily Wage Employee - Appointment through Employment Exchange against Sanctioned Post - Regularisation from date of initial appointment upheld - The respondent was appointed as driver on daily wage basis through District Employment Exchange against a sanctioned post. The court held that since the initial appointment was through a recognised mode of recruitment and against a sanctioned post, regularisation ought to be from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of government sanction of posts. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the regularisation of a daily wage driver appointed through the District Employment Exchange against a sanctioned post should be effective from the date of his initial appointment or from the date of government sanction of posts.
Final Decision
The writ appeal was dismissed. The order dated 15.06.2022 in W.P.No.32673 of 2018 was upheld, confirming regularisation of the respondent from the date of his initial appointment.
Law Points
- Regularisation of daily wage employee appointed through Employment Exchange against sanctioned post
- Date of regularisation from initial appointment
- Temporary appointment through recognised mode of recruitment
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 149
W.A.No.2798 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.23399 of 2023
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. SURENDER
Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Kumaravel, Additional Government Pleader for Appellants; Mr.G.Munuraj for Respondent
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and The District Collector, Namakkal, Namakkal District.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order of single judge directing regularisation of daily wage driver from date of initial appointment.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order dated 15.06.2022 in W.P.No.32673 of 2018 and allow the writ appeal.
Filing Reason
State challenged the regularisation order on the ground that regularisation should be effective from the date of government sanction of posts (23.06.2015) and not from the date of initial appointment (26.11.2001).
Previous Decisions
Single judge allowed W.P.No.32673 of 2018 on 15.06.2022, directing regularisation from date of initial appointment.
Issues
Whether regularisation of a daily wage driver appointed through Employment Exchange against a sanctioned post should be from the date of initial appointment or from the date of government sanction of posts.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that regularisation ought to be confined from the date of G.O.(1D).No.279 dated 23.06.2015 sanctioning 71 posts.
Respondent contended that since appointment was through Employment Exchange against a sanctioned post, regularisation from initial date is justified.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee appointed through a recognised mode of recruitment (District Employment Exchange) against a sanctioned post, even on daily wage basis, is entitled to regularisation from the date of initial appointment, and such regularisation cannot be denied merely because the government sanctioned posts at a later date.
Judgment Excerpts
Under assail is the writ order dated 15.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.32673 of 2018.
the temporary appointment made during the relevant point of time is to be construed as a regular appointment, since the initial appointment was made through the District Employment Exchange, which is a recognised mode of recruitment.
Once an employee is appointed through the District Employment Exchange for the post of the Driver and has continued in service for a fairly long time, the benefit of regularisation need not be denied.
Procedural History
The respondent filed W.P.No.32673 of 2018 seeking regularisation. The single judge allowed the writ petition on 15.06.2022, directing regularisation from the date of initial appointment. The State filed the present writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Letters Patent: Clause 15
