K.GANESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-74
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 04,2019

K.GANESAN Appellant
VERSUS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WORKMEN OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. VS. THE MANAGEMENT OF BHURKUNDA COLLIERY OF M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JAGDIP SINGH:GURDHIAN SINGH:MALVINDER SINGH:RAJWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI VS. THIRU R. GOVINDASWAMY [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The order of regularisation regularising the services of the writ petitioner from 01.03.2006 is under challenge in the writ petition and the writ petitioner is seeking a direction to regularise the services retrospectively with effect from the date on which the writ petitioner had completed one year of service from the consolidated pay salary appointment.
(2.)The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner state that the Government had issued orders in G.O. No.125, dated 27.05.1999 granting the benefit of regularisation on completion of one year of service in the consolidated pay salary. The cases of the similarly placed candidates were considered by the respondents and the benefit of retrospective regularisation was granted to the similarly placed persons as that of the writ petitioner. Thus, the counsel for the writ petitioner state that the very same benefit is to be granted to the writ petitioner also. The similar case referred by the writ petitioner was granted in proceedings,dated 28.11.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the similar benefit was granted to many other persons also, during the year 2001.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent states that the writ petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay and the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. The initial appointment was made without following the procedures contemplated and therefore, the benefit of regularisation itself was a concession granted to the writ petitioner. Thus, the benefit of retrospective regularisation cannot be granted.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.