Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances

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