The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 04 June 2019, dismissed the prayer of a writ petitioner, holding that a "daily wage employee with breaks in service is not entitled for the relief (reinstate and regularize the service with all the attend benefits and backwages.)"
The claim of the petitioner was that, he "has served more than ten years in the Department as daily rated employee and therefore, as per G.O.(Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, his service is entitled to be
regularized in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay."
The respondent defended their stand, contending that, "the writ petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee and at no point of time, he was absorbed as a permanent employee. Thus, the benefit of regularization sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted."
The court Opined that, "regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted contrary to the recruitment rules in force."
The court observed that, while "Lakh and lakh of youths of this great nation are longing
to secure public employment and they prepare materials in order to get selected even till midnight,... the authorities
competent should not be allowed to commit any such irregularity by providing backdoor appointments."
The court held that, "The erring officials, who are not following the constitutional principles, should be dealt with iron hands and suitable actions should be taken against them."
"So also, the persons, who entered into the service through backdoor, must be sent out through the way by which they entered into service." the Order states.
The court has stated that " the writ petitioner has to participate in the selection process for the purpose of securing the public employment through the open competitive process."
The order states that, "the mere continuation of services on temporary/casual/daily wages cannot confer any right and in order to appoint any candidate in the permanent basis in the public post, the scheme recognized by the constitution has to be strictly adhered to and the violation of the same to be viewed seriously."
However, the Order also adds that, "Though such cases are considered on few occasions,
those cases can never be cited as precedent nor the Government to follow such cases as principle."
The court has cited the ruling of the Apex Court, thus "The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts."
The Order adds that, Part-time employees:
" are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts."
"cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work."
"Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees."
Download Order
The claim of the petitioner was that, he "has served more than ten years in the Department as daily rated employee and therefore, as per G.O.(Ms) No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, his service is entitled to be
regularized in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay."
The respondent defended their stand, contending that, "the writ petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee and at no point of time, he was absorbed as a permanent employee. Thus, the benefit of regularization sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted."
The court Opined that, "regularization or permanent absorption cannot be granted contrary to the recruitment rules in force."
The court observed that, while "Lakh and lakh of youths of this great nation are longing
to secure public employment and they prepare materials in order to get selected even till midnight,... the authorities
competent should not be allowed to commit any such irregularity by providing backdoor appointments."
The court held that, "The erring officials, who are not following the constitutional principles, should be dealt with iron hands and suitable actions should be taken against them."
"So also, the persons, who entered into the service through backdoor, must be sent out through the way by which they entered into service." the Order states.
The court has stated that " the writ petitioner has to participate in the selection process for the purpose of securing the public employment through the open competitive process."
The order states that, "the mere continuation of services on temporary/casual/daily wages cannot confer any right and in order to appoint any candidate in the permanent basis in the public post, the scheme recognized by the constitution has to be strictly adhered to and the violation of the same to be viewed seriously."
However, the Order also adds that, "Though such cases are considered on few occasions,
those cases can never be cited as precedent nor the Government to follow such cases as principle."
The court has cited the ruling of the Apex Court, thus "The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts."
The Order adds that, Part-time employees:
" are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts."
"cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work."
"Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees."
Download Order
No comments:
Post a Comment