2017 (3) TMI 438 - SC - Indian Laws

Regularization to Watchman from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits - Held that - The learned Single Judge of the High Court, while allowing the writ filed by the respondent extended the benefit of the said G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and directed the appellants to grant regularisation of respondent s service from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits. The learned Judge failed to take note of the fact that as per G.O. Ms.No. 22 dated 28.02.2006, the services of employees working in various government departments on full-time daily wage basis, who have completed more than ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 will be regularised and not part-time Masalchis like the respondent herein. In G.O.Ms. No. 84 dated 18.06.2012, the Government made it clear that G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wagers and not to part-time daily wagers. Respondent was temporarily appointed part-time worker as per Tamil Nadu Finance Code Volume (2) Appendix (5) and his appointment was completely temporary. The respondent being appointed as part-time Masalchi, cannot compare himself to full-time daily wagers and seek benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. The Single Judge also failed to consider that the Government did not grant regularisation of services of any part-time employee on completion of ten years of his service as envisaged under the G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, if the respondent is to be given monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service, that is from 01.04.1999 till the date of his regularization that is 18.06.2012, the financial commitment to the State would be around ₹ 10,85,113/- (approximately)towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. It is pertinent to note thateven the regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O.(Rt.) No.505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14.10.2009 and G.O.(2D) No.32 Finance (T.A. 2)Department dated 26.03.2010 was effectedby extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.02.2006 only from the date of Government Orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 and not to part-time employees.As per G.O.(Rt.) No.84 dated 18.06.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service that is 18.06.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to part-time employees.
2. Entitlement of part-time employees to regularization and monetary benefits.
3. Financial implications of retrospective regularization on the State exchequer.
4. Legal precedents concerning regularization of part-time employees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to part-time employees:
The respondent, a part-time Masalchi, sought regularization based on G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which directed the regularization of full-time daily wage employees who had completed ten years of service as of 01.01.2006. The High Court had initially directed regularization from the date of completion of ten years of service. However, the appellants contended that this Government Order was applicable only to full-time daily wage employees, not part-time employees like the respondent. This was further clarified in G.O. Ms. No.74 dated 27.06.2013, which explicitly stated that part-time employees are not entitled to regularization under G.O. Ms. No.22.

2. Entitlement of part-time employees to regularization and monetary benefits:
The Supreme Court emphasized that part-time or casual employment does not confer a right to seek regularization. The respondent, being a part-time Masalchi, was not covered under G.O. Ms. No.22, which applied only to full-time daily wage employees. The Court also highlighted that the respondent's appointment was temporary and did not fall under the purview of service rules applicable to full-time employees.

3. Financial implications of retrospective regularization on the State exchequer:
The appellants argued that granting retrospective regularization and monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service would impose a significant financial burden on the State. The Supreme Court acknowledged this concern, noting that the financial commitment for back wages and pensions would be substantial, potentially running into crores of rupees per annum. The Court found that such a financial impact on the State exchequer was a valid reason to deny retrospective benefits.

4. Legal precedents concerning regularization of part-time employees:
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including the judgments in *State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)* and *Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. Thiru. R. Govindasamy and Others*, which held that part-time employees are not entitled to regularization or parity in salary with regular employees. The Court reiterated that part-time employees do not work against sanctioned posts and cannot claim regularization or equal pay for equal work.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, which had directed the regularization of the respondent's service from the date of completion of ten years with salary and other benefits. The Court held that the respondent, being a part-time Masalchi, was not entitled to the benefits of G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which applied only to full-time daily wage employees. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →