Daily-wage employees completing ten years by 1 January 2006 are entitled to regularisation from completion of ten years.

The appellant was appointed as a daily-wage watchman on 26 August 1992 after his name was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange and after he successfully underwent the selection process. He continued in service without blemish

Government Order No. 22 dated 28 February 2006 directed regularisation of daily-wage employees in Government departments who had completed ten years of service as on 1 January 2006, subject to their possessing the requisite qualifications.

Although the appellant had completed ten years of service by 26 August 2002, his service was regularised only prospectively from 17 September 2010 under G.O. No. 187, after approximately eighteen years of service.

The appellant challenged the refusal to regularise him from completion of ten years of service. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed retrospective regularisation from the date of completion of ten years, with consequential salary arrears.

The Division Bench reversed that decision, holding that the effective date of regularisation was within the Government’s policy discretion and that G.O. No. 187 operated prospectively.

Whether the appellant, having completed ten years of qualifying daily-wage service before 1 January 2006, was entitled to regularisation from the date of completion of ten years rather than from the date of G.O. No. 187.

Whether G.O. No. 74 dated 27 June 2013 or the Full Bench decision in S. Dhanasekaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu justified restricting the appellant’s regularisation to a prospective date.

Whether denying the appellant retrospective regularisation, while granting similar relief to other similarly situated employees, violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

G.O. No. 22 dated 28 February 2006 required regularisation of daily-wage employees working in Government departments who had completed ten years of service as on 1 January 2006, provided they were otherwise qualified for the relevant post.

The Court applied the principle that a party’s rights are ordinarily determined by the facts existing when the proceedings are instituted, unless a statute or considerations of equity require otherwise.

It further applied Article 14’s prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, holding that the State cannot selectively grant retrospective regularisation to similarly situated employees while denying it to an employee recruited through a substantially regular process.

The Court distinguished State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Singamuthu, which concerned part-time employees, because the appellant was not engaged in voluntary part-time work.

It also distinguished S. Dhanasekaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, which dealt with appointments lacking statutory sanction or involving “backdoor entry”; the appellant’s appointment had been routed through the Employment Exchange and a selection process against a sanctioned post.

G.O. No. 74 was held inapplicable because it was issued after the appellant’s regularisation and concerned daily-wage employees yet to be regularised.

The Supreme Court found the language of G.O. No. 22 unambiguous: 1 January 2006 was the cut-off date for determining whether an employee had completed ten years of service, not the date from which the benefit could necessarily be postponed.

The appellant had completed ten years of continuous service well before that cut-off and satisfied the essential factual conditions for regularisation.

His appointment was not a clandestine or wholly irregular entry; it followed Employment Exchange sponsorship and a selection process.

Consequently, the restrictive reasoning applicable to illegal or backdoor appointments in Dhanasekaran could not govern his case.

G.O. No. 74 was irrelevant because it post-dated both the appellant’s regularisation and institution of the writ proceedings and was intended to regulate employees who had not yet been regularised.

In light of the treatment accorded to similarly placed employees, denying the appellant regularisation from completion of ten years would be arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14.

The Division Bench therefore erred in treating G.O. No. 187 as conclusively requiring prospective regularisation.

The Division Bench’s judgment was set aside, and the Single Judge’s order was restored.

The respondents were directed to issue a revised order granting regularisation with the applicable time-scale of pay and to release all consequential benefits, including salary arrears, within three months.

The appeal was allowed without costs.