Case: Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Ors Vs. A.Singamuthu

3. The respondent herein was appointed as a part-time Masalchithrough Employment Exchange on 01.04.1989 and continued to work there and as part- time Masalchi attended the menial work in the appellant-department at District Registrar Office, Trichy in the State of Tamil Nadu.The respondent completed ten years of service as part-time Masalchi on 31.03.1999. In G.O. Ms. No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, the State Government of Tamil Nadu directed that the services of the fulltime daily wages employees working in all Government Departments, who have rendered ten years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularized by appointing them in the time scale pay of the post concerned subject to their being otherwise qualified for the post.In furtherance to the above Government Order, G.O. (D) No.659 Commercial Taxes and Registration (M2) Dept. dated 28.12.2006 was issued whereby the Government directed to fill vacancies in various categories in the Registration Department existing against the Direct Recruitment through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Employment Exchange, Commissioner of Technical Education and on Compassionate Grounds, etc. various categories were considered and,interalia, among them 308 posts of watchman were required to be filled.The respondent herein approached the High Court by filing W.P. No.26702 of 2010 praying for regularization of his service on completion of ten years of service from the date of his appointment and to appoint him as Watchman in the regular time scale. Vide order dated 26.11.2010, the learned Single Judge directed the Inspector General of Registration to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 and grant regularization to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service with salary and other benefits.Being aggrieved, the appellant-department filed writ appeal contending that G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to the daily wage full-time employees and not applicable to the respondent as the respondent was only a part-time Masalchi. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal vide proceedings No.10425/A1/2012 dated 02.07.2012, the District Registrar appointed the respondent and four others as a full-time employees in the post of Watchman by regularisingthem and the services of respondent has been placed at Sub-Registrar, Uraiyur, Trichy. The Writ Appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge.Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal contending that the High Court has erred in directing regularization of the service of the respondent herein from the date of completion of ten years of his service with salary and other benefits.

Reasoning: 9. Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciouslyaccepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer.In the present case, the respondent herein was engaged to fetch water, to sweep and other connected menial works for one or two hours in a day as part-time Masalchi. The post of part-time Masalchi is not included in ClassIV or V of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Further a part-time Masalchi cannot be treated as equivalent to the post of Masalchi (full- time) basis because the post of part-time Masalchi does not come under the purview of service rules. The respondent herein was only a part-time Masalchi and hence the question of applying G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006, which is applicable only to the daily wage full-time employees,does not arise.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 respondents 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. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. 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 Rs. 10,85,113/- (approximately)towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. That apart, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of Registration Department, about 172 persons were regularized under various G.Os. and if the impugned order is sustained, the Government will have to pay the back wages to all those persons from the date of completion of ten years in service and this will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. Since the impugned order directing regularization of the respondent from the date of completion of their ten years would adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also.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.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.