Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Writ Appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and its officials against a decision of a learned Single Judge that directed the regularization of the respondent's service as an Anti-Poaching Watcher. The respondent had been appointed on 01.04.2000 and claimed regularization based on completing ten years of service by 31.03.2010. However, the appellants contended that the respondent had a break-in-service totaling two years and two months, which should be considered, thus delaying his eligibility for regularization until 31.05.2012. The respondent argued that the break-in-service should not affect his claim, citing a response received under the Right to Information Act that acknowledged his completion of ten years of service. The court analyzed the previous orders and the relevant Government Orders, particularly G.O.Ms.No.76 and G.O.Ms.No.116, which outlined the criteria for regularization. The court emphasized that the Division Bench had previously ruled that breaks in service should be excluded when calculating the ten years of service. Ultimately, the court found that the respondent's claim for regularization was not valid due to the break-in-service and that the learned Single Judge's order was inconsistent with the established policy. The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Regularization of Service - Eligibility for Regularization - Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules - The court held that the respondent's break-in-service must be considered, leading to a completion of ten years of service only on 31.05.2012, thus disqualifying him from benefits under G.O.Ms.No.116. The learned Single Judge's order for regularization was set aside as it conflicted with the established policy and rules (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to regularization of service as Anti-Poaching Watcher considering the break-in-service.
Final Decision
The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.2496 of 2022, dated 29.10.2024, was set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularization of service
- Break-in-service
- Government Orders
- Policy decision
- Ten years of service
