Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP 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