M. SIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon being apprised of the conflicting opinions expressed by the Division Benches of this Court, a learned Single Judge has referred the issue relating to the operation of G.O.Ms. No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dtd. 27/6/2013 to a Larger Bench and hence the matter is before us.

(2.) The factual matrix: Pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (3) LLN 78 (SC) : 2006 (4) SCC 1, the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dtd. 28/2/2006 directing Regularisation of all Temporary Employees, who had completed ten years of service as on 1/1/2006. The said Government Order is extracted for convenience. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_72_LAWS(MAD)2_2024_1.JPG</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_72_LAWS(MAD)2_2024_2.JPG</IMG> The said Government Order did not make any difference between those, who have been appointed through Employment Exchanges and others or between Part-Time and Full-Time Employees. Several claims for Regularisation were made under the said Government Order and some cases reached this Court also. Nearly after eight years, on 27/6/2013, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.74, dtd. 27/6/2013, which in effect restricted the operation of G.O.Ms. No.22, dtd. 28/2/2006 to certain categories of Temporary Employees only. This led to a spate of rejections of requests for Regularisation which in turn led to several Writ Petitions being filed in this Court and some of them reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court also.

(3.) The bone of contention in all these matters was the scope or the operation of G.O.Ms. No.74, dtd. 27/6/2013. The said Government Order itself provided that it shall be deemed to have come into force with retrospective effect from 1/1/2006. One of the main grounds of challenge to the said Government Order was that it purports to take away a vested right and therefore, it cannot operate retrospectively. Yet another question that arose was the mode of recruitment of the Temporary Employees. G.O.Ms. No.22, dtd. 28/2/2006 did not make any distinction between a Temporary Employee sponsored by an Employment Exchange and others. However, G.O.Ms. No.74, dtd. 27/6/2013 sought to restrict the benefit of Regularisation only to those, who have been employed through Employment Exchanges. Several Orders were passed by the Hon'ble Single Judges as well as the Division Benches in matters relating to the interpretation of G.O.Ms. No.74, dtd. 27/6/2013 and the scope of the said Government Order. It is in this factual background the Order of Reference came to be made. Precedents: