Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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"]

Similar News