Madras High Court :Government's Ban Cannot Override Legitimate Rights: Orders Retrospective Regularisation of Mazdoors from 2001, Citing 'Lawful Entitlement'
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan, has delivered a judgment directing the retrospective regularisation of services of five Mazdoors from the year 2001. The Court partially modified the previous order of the Writ Court, thereby affirming the claim for regularisation from the date proposals were submitted rather than from the date of actual issuance of regularisation orders. The matter pertained to employment conditions within the Public (Maintenance) Department, Secretariat, Government of Tamil Nadu.
The writ appeal was filed by the State challenging an earlier order that directed regularisation of services upon completion of 10 years with all consequential benefits. The High Court concluded that the delay in regularisation, due to a governmental ban on recruitment, could not be used to deny benefits legitimately due to the respondents.
The respondents were initially appointed as daily wage Mazdoors in the Secretariat during the years 1989 and 1990. Their names and respective dates of appointment are as follows:
- Balakrishnan - 05.04.1989
- Sarasu - 31.03.1989
- Santhi - 05.02.1990
- Nageswari - 24.09.1990
- Prabudoss - 21.04.1990
Their appointments were on a daily wage basis. Over the years, the State Government had issued various Government Orders (G.O.) regularising services of similarly placed individuals. In particular, G.O.(Ms.) No.524 dated 06.06.1983 laid down that daily wage Mazdoors who had completed five years of continuous service should be regularised.
Between 1983 and 1990, 49 Mazdoors had been appointed, of whom 31 were regularised under Government Orders issued in 1997, 2000, and 2000 respectively. The proposal to regularise the remaining, including the five respondents, was submitted in 2001 based on available vacancies. However, their services were not regularised at that time.
The State cited a ban imposed by G.O.(Ms.) No.212 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 29.11.2001, which prohibited filling up of vacancies except essential posts like teachers, doctors, and police constables. The respondents' services were eventually regularised only through G.O.(Ms.) No.1016 dated 21.09.2006 and G.O.(Ms.) No.4565 dated 29.11.2007.
Due to this delayed regularisation, the respondents were included under the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), introduced on 01.04.2003, rather than the earlier pension scheme which applied to those regularised before that date. They approached the writ court seeking regularisation from 2001 onwards to qualify for the old pension benefits.
The writ court cited in their favour, directing regularisation from the date of completion of 10 years of service. The State then filed a writ appeal against this order.
The Bench noted that the respondents were eligible for regularisation as early as 2001 and proposals had been sent that year. It observed:
"The ban imposed in G.O.(Ms.) No.212 dated 29.11.2001 cannot be a bar or a valid ground to delay the regularisation of the services which they were lawfully entitled to."
Further, it recorded:
"Even though the orders regularising their services came to be issued in the years 2006-2007 respectively, still the date of regularisation ought to have been granted from the date of the available sanctioned vacancies and proposal that was submitted in the year 2001."
The Court also examined the implementation of G.O.(Ms.) No.524 dated 06.06.1983 and noted that services of other similarly placed individuals were regularised from earlier dates. It stated:
"When the respondents have been engaged in services from the years 1989-1990 and as per G.O.(Ms.) No.524 dated 06.06.1983, the services of Mazdoors, who have completed 5 years of continuous service on daily wages, are to be regularised... the services of the respondents also ought to have been regularised in the available vacancies, for which the proposals were submitted in the year 2001 itself."
Rejecting the State's contention that retrospective regularisation was not possible, the Bench recorded:
"Even though the above Government Order imposes a ban on filling up of vacant posts, it could be applied only for fresh appointments to be made and cannot be extended to regularisation of the services of eligible persons."
The Court referenced G.O.(Ms.) No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which provided for regularisation of daily wage workers who had completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006, further supporting the respondents' claim.
The Court modified the Writ Court’s order by directing:
"The appellants to regularise the services of the respondents with effect from the date of proposals submitted in the year 2001 for regularisation based on the available vacancies and grant all consequential benefits as directed by the writ court."
It extended the timeline for compliance:
"The time granted by the writ court is extended by a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Appellants: Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Ananda Kumar, Government Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. A. R. Suresh
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Public (Maintenance) Department and another vs A. Balakrishnan and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:791
Case Number: W.A.No.738 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6249 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan
[Read/Download order]
