Madras HC Upholds Settlement Pay Revision For Co-op Society Clerk After 19 Years’ Service Despite Irregular Appointment

The first respondent, P. Manikandan, was appointed as a Permanent Clerk in the appellant Society on 1 June 2007 and continued in service. He sought revision of pay under the settlement proceedings dated 15 June 2009, on par with similarly situated employees.

The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to revise his pay and release the monetary benefits. The Society appealed, contending that the appointment was irregular, had not been regularised or approved, and that the Society was not amenable to writ jurisdiction

The Court referred to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes illegal appointments from irregular appointments in public employment and recognises only limited circumstances in which regularisation may be considered

The Court also proceeded on the principle that an employee’s entitlement to a benefit under a settlement must be assessed by reference to the nature of the appointment and the settlement’s terms; continued service alone does not confer a right to regularisation. No statute was identified as the basis of decision.

The Court noted that Manikandan’s appointment as Permanent Clerk and his continued service were undisputed, and that no competent authority had initiated proceedings to cancel the appointment

It held that the Society could not rely solely on the allegation of irregularity to deny the pay-revision benefit without examining the settlement’s terms and applicability.

While long service did not itself create a right to regularisation, the Court observed that the appellant characterised the appointment as irregular, not illegal, and concluded that the appellant had not established a sufficient ground to deny the settlement benefit

The judgment noted the writ-jurisdiction objection but did not separately analyse or determine it

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed