Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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