Case Note & Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu preferred an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent before the Madras High Court against the order of a single judge in a writ petition. The writ petition had been filed by a group of individuals who were initially appointed as part-time scavengers in the office of the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj in the year 1983. They continued in such capacity and were subsequently converted to full-time temporary employees on contingent or consolidated pay. These employees sought regularization of their services as scavengers by submitting representations on 19.06.2012, which were not considered, leading to the filing of the writ petition. Before the writ court, the employees relied on G.O.Ms.No.385 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.10.2010, which provided a special time scale of pay to such consolidated pay employees, and argued for regularization. The writ court disposed of the petition by directing the State to send a proposal to the Government for consideration of regularization and to take an appropriate decision regarding monetary benefits. The State, being aggrieved, filed the present appeal contending that the writ court erred in issuing such a direction. The State argued that recruitment and regularization must be done strictly in accordance with the service rules and any direction by the court would violate those rules. It pointed to the policy decision taken through G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 14.05.2002, based on the recommendations of the Expenditure Reforms Commission, which directed outsourcing of all Group D work like sweeping, scavenging, cleaning, and gardening. The policy required that existing NMR/consolidated wage/daily wage employees be given preference in employment by the contractor, but did not envisage direct permanent absorption. The State further contended that allowing such a direction would open a Pandora’s box, as hundreds of similarly placed employees would seek similar relief, causing an unbearable financial burden on the state exchequer. The respondents defended the writ court order, emphasizing their long years of service and the fact that they were granted special time scale, indicating a recognition of their status. They argued that the writ court had merely asked the State to consider their case, not to mandatorily regularize them. The Division Bench, after hearing the submissions, examined the legal principles applicable. The Court held that regularization and permanent absorption must be effected strictly in accordance with the service rules. An employee who accepts the terms and conditions of temporary or part-time employment cannot later claim permanent status in violation of the rules. The Court recognized that the Government indeed has the power to frame a scheme or policy for schematic absorption of such employees in a phased manner if sanctioned posts exist, but that is an administrative decision that cannot be compelled by a judicial direction. The Court noted that even the writ court had only suggested the Government to take a decision, but such a direction, even if suggestive, was not permissible as it could be construed as judicial overreach into the executive domain. Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the single judge dated 11.03.2021 in W.P.No.20719 of 2012, and imposed no costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Temporary Employees - Regularisation and permanent absorption must be strictly in accordance with Service Rules - Service Law (Regularisation) - Regularisation of part-time scavengers who were subsequently made full-time temporary employees on consolidated/contingent pay was sought by the respondents. The State contended that such regularisation cannot be directed by the Court as it would violate service rules and policy. Held that the High Court cannot direct the Government to regularise services of temporary employees in violation of Service Rules; the Government may frame a scheme for absorption if posts exist, but it is an administrative decision. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can direct the Government to regularize services of temporary employees in violation of service rules, and whether the writ court's direction was legally sustainable
Final Decision
Writ Appeal allowed; impugned writ order set aside; no costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Regularization must be strictly in accordance with service rules
- High Court cannot direct regularization in violation of rules
- temporary employees cannot claim permanency as a matter of right
- policy decision for absorption is an administrative function
