Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a writ appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against an order of a learned single judge dated 28.07.2017 in W.P.No.18685 of 2014. The respondent, V. Padma, was initially appointed as a temporary Female Grade II Warder in the Prison Department on a temporary basis, not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Subsequently, her services were terminated along with other temporary warders. They made representations to the Government for permanent absorption. Based on a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personal and Administrative Reforms(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.225, Home (Prison-II) Department dated 13.03.2009, regularising their services in sanctioned posts with time scale of pay from that date. The respondent was brought under regular establishment from 2009. This government order remained unchallenged. After about 5 years, on 22.02.2014, the respondent submitted a representation seeking retrospective regularisation from her initial temporary engagement. The Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prison rejected this claim on 02.04.2014, stating that the initial appointment was temporary and similar employees had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and that regularisation was granted from 2009. The respondent then filed W.P.No.18685 of 2014, which was allowed by the learned single judge. The State appealed. The Division Bench considered the issues: whether the respondent was entitled to retrospective regularisation, and whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches. The Court noted that the initial appointment was temporary and not in accordance with rules, and the government order regularising services from 2009 was not challenged. The Court held that retrospective regularisation cannot be granted as it would amount to rewriting the terms of the government order. The Court also held that the writ petition was filed after a long delay and the respondent had accepted the regularisation from 2009. The Court set aside the order of the learned single judge and dismissed the writ petition. The writ appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Retrospective Regularisation - Temporary Appointment - The respondent was initially appointed as temporary Female Grade II Warder not in accordance with Recruitment Rules. The Government regularised her services from 2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.225, Home (Prison-II) Department dated 13.03.2009, which remained unchallenged. The respondent sought retrospective regularisation from her initial engagement, which was rejected. The Court held that retrospective regularisation cannot be granted as the initial appointment was temporary and not in accordance with rules, and the government order regularising from 2009 was not challenged. (Paras 2-4) B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Government Order - The respondent challenged the rejection of her representation after 5 years of the government order regularising her services. The Court held that the writ petition was filed after a long delay and the respondent had accepted the regularisation from 2009 without demur. Therefore, the claim for retrospective regularisation was barred by delay and laches. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Regularisation - Policy Decision - The Government's policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personal and Administrative Reforms(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.225, Home (Prison-II) Department dated 13.03.2009 regularised the services of temporary Female Grade II Warders from the date of the order. The Court held that such policy decisions are binding and cannot be circumvented by seeking retrospective effect. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent is entitled to retrospective regularisation of her service as Female Grade II Warder from the date of her initial temporary engagement, despite the government order regularising her services from 2009 remaining unchallenged.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.18685 of 2014 is set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Regularisation of temporary employees cannot be retrospective from initial engagement if initial appointment was not in accordance with recruitment rules
- Government order regularising services from a later date remains unchallenged
- Delay and laches in challenging government order after 5 years
