WA/1893/2024 of The Government Of Tamilnadu Vs K Velayutham on 1 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ order dated 01.02.2024 passed in WP No. 22939 of 2012 is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

WA No. 1893 of 2024

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Appellants State would contend that the respondent was appointed as Part Time Sweeper on 05.02.1991 and retired as Part Time Sweeper in the year 31.07.2008. Even the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 cannot be extended since the respondent has not completed 10 years of continuous service in a full time employment. Part Time Sweepers are not entitled to avail the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22.

3. Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent strenuously opposed by stating that the respondent served continuously from the year 1991 to 2005. He has completed 14 years of Part Time services and that is to be taken into consideration to regularise his services. The learned Single Judge considered the length of service rendered by the respondent and granted the relief and therefore, the present Writ Appeal has to be rejected.

4. The Writ Court has considered the Government Order issued in GO Ms.No.111, School Education Department, dated 09.05.2012, wherein, similarly placed employees were regularised in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay. Therefore, the services of the respondent has also to be regularised.

WA No. 1893 of 2024

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.

6. The issue regarding the regularisation of services of the Part Time employees, particularly, in the Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy & Ors1 dealt with the Part Time employees in the Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu by itself. Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under:

8. The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant has already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the respondents which stood regularised should not be affected. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

7. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Even the temporary employees must be in a full 1 (2014) 4 SCC 769

WA No. 1893 of 2024

time job. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent served as Part Time employee till his retirement and that being so, the benefit of regularisation cannot be granted in view of the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. With these observations, the writ order impugned dated 01.02.2024 passed in WP No. 22939 of 2012 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI

WA No. 1893 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WA No. 1893 of 2024 and CMP No.13583 of 2024 01-10-2026