Madras High Court Hears Petition to Regularize Services of NREGS Computer Assistant. Petitioner Seeks Mandamus to Direct Respondents to Regularize His Services Considering Length of Service, Relying on Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.1594 of 2017.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Madurai
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioner, K.R. Vijaya Kumar, sought a direction to the respondents – the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department), the Commissioner of that department, and the District Collector of Thoothukudi – to regularize his services as a Computer Assistant along with other candidates who had been recruited through the employment exchange. He specifically prayed that his length of service be taken into consideration in the light of a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court dated 28.11.2017 in W.A.No.1594 of 2017. The petitioner's case was that he was initially appointed as Computer Assistant in 2008 on a consolidated pay basis. The appointment was made after a paper publication on 14.03.2008 by the third respondent (District Collector), in response to which the petitioner participated in an interview. The appointment order was issued under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and the post was a sanctioned one. While he was working as Computer Assistant, his services were terminated by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 31.07.2008, citing administrative reasons. He was again appointed, but this time his appointment seemed to have been made on an outsourcing basis, as if he was recruited through private agencies. However, the fact remained that he was originally appointed on the basis of the paper publication. The petitioner claimed to have rendered more than ten years of service. During the pendency of the matter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37. The petition was filed in 2019 and came up for hearing before Justice M. Jothiraman on 17.02.2025. The petitioner was represented by Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar, and the respondents by the Additional Government Pleader, Mr. G.V. Vairam Santhosh. The core legal issue revolved around the right to regularization of services of a temporary employee under a government scheme, particularly when the initial appointment was through a transparent process and the employee had put in a long period of service, relying on a precedent. The judgment extract provided does not include the final order or reasoning of the court; it only sets out the prayer and the factual averments. Therefore, the outcome of the petition is not known from the text supplied.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees - Length of Service - Constitution of India, Article 226; Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Sections Not mentioned - National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) - Petitioner initially appointed as Computer Assistant in 2008 on consolidated pay pursuant to a newspaper advertisement and interview, appointment made under NREGS in a sanctioned post - Services terminated on 31.07.2008 on administrative grounds; subsequently reappointed on outsourcing basis as if recruited through private agencies, though original appointment had been through public process - Petitioner rendered over ten years of service - Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37 - Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to regularize his services along with other candidates recruited through employment exchange, considering his length of service and relying on the Division Bench judgment dated 28.11.2017 in W.A.No.1594 of 2017 - Held: The judgment text does not contain a final order; the petition remains pending or was heard on 17.02.2025.

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, appointed as Computer Assistant under NREGS in 2008 and subsequently terminated while his services were later outsourced, is entitled to regularization of his services taking into account his length of service, in light of the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1594 of 2017.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • regularization of services
  • length of service
  • consolidated pay
  • termination on administrative grounds
  • writ of mandamus
  • Article 226
  • Constitution of India
  • employment through paper publication
  • outsourcing
  • National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
  • G.O.Ms.No.37
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 243

W.P.(MD) No.5013 of 2019

2025-02-17

M. Jothiraman

2025:MHC:464

C. Venkatesh Kumar for M/s. Ajmal Associates (for petitioner), G.V. Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader (for respondents)

K.R. Vijaya Kumar

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department; 2. The Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department; 3. The District Collector, Thoothukudi District

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization of services

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks direction to respondents to regularize his services along with other candidates recruited through employment exchange, considering his length of service, in light of a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1594 of 2017

Filing Reason

Petitioner's services were initially terminated and later outsourced despite original appointment through public advertisement and long service; seeks parity with other employees

Previous Decisions

Division Bench judgment dated 28.11.2017 in W.A.No.1594 of 2017 is relied upon, but no prior decisions in this specific petition are mentioned

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services as Computer Assistant under NREGS despite initial termination and subsequent outsourcing, considering his length of service and the earlier Division Bench judgment.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner claims he was appointed in 2008 on consolidated pay through a paper publication and interview, in a sanctioned post under NREGS; termination was on administrative grounds; though reappointed, it was disguised as outsourcing; he rendered over ten years of service; Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37; seeks regularization in terms of the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.1594 of 2017. The text does not explicitly record the respondents' submissions, but from the context they likely opposed regularization, possibly arguing that the appointment was temporary, on consolidated pay, and later on outsourcing basis, and that the petitioner had no legal right to regularization.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with other candidates, who were recruited through employment exchange, taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner, in the light of Judgment, dated 28.11.2017, of the Honble Division Bench of this Court, made in W.A.No.1594 of 2017. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Computer Assistant in the year 2008 on consolidated pay. The third respondent issued a paper publication in a daily newspaper on 14.03.2008. The petitioner participated in the interview and, it was only on that basis, appointment order was issued under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). The said appointment was made in a sanctioned post. While he was working as Computer Assistant, the third respondent terminated his services, vide proceedings, dated 31.07.2008, on account of administrative reasons. He was again appointed, but, his appointment seemed to have been made on the basis of outsourcing, as if he was recruited through private agencies. But, the fact remained that he was originally appointed on the basis of paper publication. He rendered more than ten years of service. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37...

Procedural History

The writ petition W.P.(MD) No.5013 of 2019 was filed in 2019 and came up for hearing before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 17.02.2025. No other prior proceedings are mentioned in the provided text.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Hears Petition to Regularize Services of NREGS Computer Assistant. Petitioner Seeks Mandamus to Direct Respondents to Regularize His Services Considering Length of Service, Relying on Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.1594 of 2017.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Commercial Dispute. Appointment of Arbitrator by Advocate on Behalf of Party Held Valid Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.