SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND ANR. versus A. SINGAMUTHU

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 07-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 587 
SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND 
A 
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AND ANR. 
v. 
A. SINGAMUTHU 
(Civil Appeal No. 3770 of2017) 
B 
MARCH 07, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]. 
Service Law: 
Regularization .:_ Date of - Determination - State, by 
Government Order dated 28.2.2006, directed the services of the 
full-time daily wages employees working in all Government 
Departments, who have rendered ten years of service as on 1.1.2006, 
to be regularized - Respondent a part-time employee filed writ 
petition seeking regularization of his services on completion of ten 
years of service from the date of his appointment in view of the G 0. 
dated 28.6.2006 - Single Judge of High Court directed to extend 
the benefits of GO. dated 28.6.2006 and to grant regularization to 
the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service -
Writ appeal by .State - During pendency of the writ appeal 
respondent was appointed as a full time employee by regularizing 
his services in pursuance of GO. dated 18.6.2012 - Division Bench 
of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge - On appeal, 
held: Respondent-employee was temporarily appoi11ted part:time 
worker and hence was not entitled to compare himself to full time 
daily wagers and seek be11efit of GO. dated 28.2.2006 - Even the 
regutarizatio11 of services of part-time employees vi de G 0. dated 
14.10.2009 and G.O. dated 26.3.2010 was effected by extending 
the benefit ofG.O. dated 28.2.2006 only from the date-of G.Os. 
and not from the date of completion of their ten years of servite -
A.r per GO. dated 18.6.2012 also the respondent is entitled to the 
monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of the G. 0. 
regularizing his service i.e. 18.6:2012 and not earlier - Therefore, 
orders of Courts below in granting benefits to the respondent from 
,.· ... the date of completion of ten years of service are liable to be set 
aside. 
,.... 
587 
c 
D 
E . 
F 
G 
H 
588 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve 
the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of Jaw 
that continuanc~ .. in' service for Jong 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 consciously 
accepted 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 
Jong period of service rendered by the employees. However, this 
may nof 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. [Para 9][593-B-D] 
2. In G.O. Ms. No. 22 P & AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006, 
only full-time d~.ily wage employees were directed to be 
regularized on completion of ten years of continuous service as 
on 01.01.2006. This was clarified by the Governmi:nt in the 
Government Order passed subsequently G.O. Ms. No. 74 P & 
AR Dept. dated 27.06.2013 clarifying that G.0. Ms. No. 22 P & 
AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to the full-time daily 
wage employees, who had completed ten years of continuous 
service as on 01.01.2006. In G.O. Ms. No. 74 dated 27.06.2013, 
it was made clear that the part-time employees are not entitled 
for regularization and that full-time daily wage employees, who 
had completed 10 years of service after 01.01.2006 are also not 
entitled for regularization of services. [Para 11][594-E-G] 
3. In the present "case, the respondent herein was engaged 
to fetch water, to sweep and other connected menial works for 
·one or two hou-rs in a day as part-time Masalchi. The post of 
part-time Masalchi is not i~cluded in Class IV 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 
SECY. TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND REGISTRATION 
DEPT., SECRETARIATv.A. SINGAMUTHU 
the daily wage full-time emp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.