A Madras High Court Bench presided by Justice S.M. Subramaniam ruled that individuals appointed temporarily as daily salary staff could not request regularization and continuous absorption.
The matter arose due to a written request for the issuance of a mandamus letter under Article 226 of the Constitution, which requested that the secretary should regularize the services of petitioners, who had served five and ten years, thereby extending the financial and service-related services to the Government of the Tamil Nadu, local government departments and other respondents.
Initially, the written petitioners have been assigned as water supply assistants on five separate occasions as daily salary workers. As a consequence, some petitioners have served over five years, while others have served more than ten years. The advocates of the petitioners, therefore, contended that they had the right to regularize the approved position on a periodic salary basis.
Further, the counsel for the petitioner indicated that the government issued several orders extending the benefit to daily workers, who have served for more than ten years temporarily. Besides, some authors who had already been brought under periodic control had received the advantages of regularisation and continuous absorption from courts. The advantages of regularization and continuous absorption must, therefore, be stretched to the petitioners.
It was decided by the Court that all appointments should be made under the laws governing recruitment. By Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India pronounced that the High Court could not issue a directive to the officials involved for regularization of workers' facilities, who were not appointed under the recruitment regulations in force.
Referring to several cases, the Court held that it was not possible to grant regularization or permanent absorption in breach of the recruitment rules in force and that the writ petitioners could not seek the benefits of regularization and permanent absorption. The petition was rejected by the High Court.
Tags : #Legal