Principles of Equity and Parity Entitle Employees to Regularization from the Date of Initial Appointment

The applicants were appointed as Laboratory Peons/General Duty Workers on a time-scale of pay in 2005 and 2006

In earlier rounds of litigation (O.A. Nos. 214 and 82 of 2009), the Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize their services, a decision upheld by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court

While similarly situated colleagues (M. Jayashankar and Mrs. Joicemani) were regularized from their initial 2007 appointment dates with full benefits, the respondents only granted the applicants regular status from 06.09.2016

The applicants challenged the 2017 impugned orders which denied back-dating their regularization to the initial date of appointment

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment on par with similarly placed persons

2. Whether the non-availability of a regular post is a valid ground to deny retrospective regularization to employees already placed on a time-scale of pay

The Tribunal primarily relied on the legal distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments as established in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

It applied the principle from Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (2024 INSC 332), which holds that procedural formalities cannot perpetually deny substantive rights accrued through continuous service, especially when the selection followed a regular process like written tests or interviews

Additionally, the court applied the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, requiring that similarly situated employees be treated uniformly regarding service benefits

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants were not "backdoor" entries but were appointed via a selection committee on a time-scale of pay, which implies substantive appointment

The court rejected the respondents' plea of "non-availability of posts," noting that the Ministry of Law and the Directorate General of Health Services had already recommended regularization from the initial date of appointment

By comparing the applicants to colleagues M. Jayashankar and Mrs. Joicemani, the Tribunal found the respondents' actions arbitrary and discriminatory

Citing Vinod Kumar, the court emphasized that continuous service in roles akin to permanent employees warrants a reclassification to regular status to satisfy equity and fairness

The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to regularize the applicants' services from their initial appointment dates with all consequential benefits. The respondents were ordered to comply within three months. All Original Applications were allowed with no order as to costs