Employees cannot claim retrospective permanency after leaving their regularization date unchallenged.

The petitioners joined the Department of Sericulture as daily-wage workers on 6 July 1990 and 21 July 1986, respectively.

They were regularized with effect from 23 February 2010 under G.O.(Ms).No.25 and later retired in 2019 and 2018.

They sought recognition as permanent employees from their respective initial appointment dates and consequential pension benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, relying on the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 and R. Lakshmi v. Chief Engineer (Personnel).

The State opposed the petitions, including on the grounds that the 2010 regularization had not been challenged and the pension scheme did not apply to the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated as permanent employees under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 from their initial appointment dates.

Whether, on that basis, the petitioners were entitled to pension and consequential benefits under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

The Court considered the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which the petitioners invoked to claim permanency from their initial appointment dates, and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, under which they sought pension benefits.

It also relied on G.O.(Ms).No.25, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (G2) Department, dated 23 February 2010, which regularized the petitioners from that date; because the petitioners had not challenged that Government Order, its effective date could not be altered in these proceedings.

The Court distinguished R. Lakshmi v. Chief Engineer (Personnel) as factually inapplicable.

The Court found that the petitioners’ regularization took effect on 23 February 2010 under G.O.(Ms).No.25, and that the Government Order remained unchallenged.

Their request to have permanency recognized from their initial appointment dates was therefore inconsistent with the operative regularization order and could not be granted indirectly in these writ petitions.

The Court also observed that the pension scheme was not applicable with effect from 1 April 2003; because the petitioners were regularized only in 2010, they were not entitled to the claimed pension benefit.

The precedent cited by the petitioners did not alter that conclusion because its facts were distinguishable.

Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.