Part-time employees cannot claim regularisation based solely on length of service.

The respondent was appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper on 5 February 1991 and retired in that capacity on 31 July 2008. He sought regularisation, relying on his years of part-time service.

The Single Judge allowed his writ petition, referring to G.O. Ms. No. 111, School Education Department, dated 9 May 2012, under which similarly placed employees had been regularised. The State appealed, contending that the respondent was not eligible for regularisation under G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28 February 2006 because he had not completed ten years in full-time employment.

Whether the respondent’s continuous service as a Part-Time Sweeper entitled him to regularisation

Whether the Single Judge’s order granting relief could stand in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on regularisation of part-time employees in the Tamil Nadu School Education Department

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy, (2014) 4 SCC 769, which it treated as governing regularisation claims by part-time employees in the Tamil Nadu School Education Department.

The Court stated that the benefit of regularisation was unavailable where the employee had served only in a part-time capacity; a temporary employee must be in full-time employment to claim such benefit.

G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 28 February 2006 and G.O. Ms. No. 111 dated 9 May 2012 were also referred to in the parties’ submissions and the Single Judge’s reasoning.

The respondent’s service was undisputedly part-time, including at retirement. Although he relied on the duration of his service and the regularisation of similarly placed employees under G.O. Ms. No. 111, the Division Bench held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. Govindaswamy governed his claim.

Because he had not served in a full-time capacity, his length of part-time service did not entitle him to regularisation; the Single Judge’s order therefore could not be sustained.

It set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 1 February 2024, allowed the writ appeal, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.