Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Supreme Court Rules Against Reinstatement and Regularization of Discontinued Employees in Tamil Nadu

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that employees who were discontinued under a government scheme in Tamil Nadu are not entitled to reinstatement and regularization of their services. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, addressed the issue of whether the employees engaged in a rural employment scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA) could claim reinstatement and regularization.

The court referred to the past records and policy changes surrounding the employment scheme, highlighting its objective of enhancing the livelihood security of poor households in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment. It noted that the scheme had undergone various changes and forms since its introduction in 1989, with periods of discontinuation and reinstatement by successive governments.

Rejecting the direction of the High Court to reinstate and regularize the services of the discontinued employees, the Supreme Court emphasized that the power to create posts rests with the executive or legislative authorities and cannot be directed by the courts. It referred to previous judgments that established the non-judicial nature of post creation and the importance of not bypassing the constitutional requirements.

The court further clarified that the employees in question were engaged in a temporary scheme and were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts. It distinguished their case from situations where irregularly appointed employees in regular establishments were considered for regularization.

Regarding the employees who did not join the scheme introduced in 2022, the court held that they were entitled to receive the honorarium for the specific period they were eligible for, but not to any interest on the principal amount.

The judgment clarified that the employees who joined the scheme introduced in 2022 would remain co-terminus with the scheme and could continue as long as it remained in force. However, they had no right to seek reinstatement or regularization of their services.

This landmark judgment provides clarity on the issue of reinstatement and regularization of employees engaged in temporary schemes under the MGNREGA. It reinforces the principle that courts cannot direct the creation of posts and that regularization can only be considered in specific circumstances.

DATE OF DECISION: April 11, 2023

THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. VS TAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL AND ORS. ETC.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/11-Apr-2023-GOVT.-OF-TAMIL-NADU-VS-TAMIL-NADU.pdf"]

Latest Legal News