Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules

Madras High Court, in K. Maruthachalam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, dismissed a writ petition challenging the revised seniority list of March 14, 2022. The petitioner contended that his seniority should be based on his regularization date in 1998, but the Court ruled that seniority must be calculated from his initial appointment in 1997. The decision reinforces the principle that the initial date of appointment, even during a training period, governs seniority determination under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

The petitioner, K. Maruthachalam, was appointed as a Salaipaniyalar (Road Worker) in the Pollachi Division on November 5, 1997. His initial appointment was on consolidated pay during a one-year training period. After successfully completing the training, his services were regularized on December 13, 1998. The petitioner was later aggrieved when a revised seniority list, issued on March 14, 2022, pushed him down the ranks, affecting his prospects for promotion to the post of Road Inspector Grade-II. He sought the restoration of the earlier seniority list dated January 1, 2018, which had placed him higher.

The main legal issue revolved around the date from which the petitioner’s seniority should be reckoned: his initial appointment in 1997 or the date of his regularization in 1998. The petitioner argued that his 1997 appointment was merely adhoc and that his regular service began only in 1998, after the completion of his training period. He relied on a Supreme Court ruling in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of U.P., which distinguished adhoc appointments from regular appointments.

However, the respondents contended that under Section 40(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, seniority should be calculated from the date of initial appointment. They argued that the training period in 1997 was part of the regular process and a prerequisite for the petitioner’s regularization in 1998.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh upheld the respondents’ argument that seniority should be calculated from the petitioner’s initial appointment in 1997, not from his regularization in 1998. The Court observed:

“In service jurisprudence, the very term ‘regularization’ will necessarily involve a period prior to that, when the concerned employee is appointed and after he completes a particular tenure, his services will be regularized. The regularization does not happen on the date of appointment.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner’s appointment in 1997 was not adhoc but was made in accordance with the rules and procedures, with the training period being a prerequisite for regularization. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rashi Mani Mishra was deemed inapplicable, as the facts of that case involved adhoc appointments without prior approval or consultation, which was not the situation here.

The seniority list prepared by the fifth respondent, which counted the petitioner’s service from 1997, was found to be legally valid. Consequently, the promotions granted to the private respondents based on the seniority list were also upheld.

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that seniority for the petitioner and others in similar positions must be calculated from their initial date of appointment in 1997. The Court found no illegality in the revised seniority list or the promotions granted to other employees. The petitioner’s claim for seniority from 1998 was rejected, and no costs were awarded.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2024