WP/19160/2023 of D.SATHIYAPRIYA Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU on 16 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed for regularisation of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner originally joined as Data Entry Operator on 05.07.2001. From 05.07.2001 to 02.06.2012, she has been working at various forest division. In the meanwhile, based upon the publication issued by the respondents in dailies vide publication dated 31.05.2012, the petitioner participated in the selection process and again appointed as Data Entry Operator since 02.06.2012. Further, the learned counsel submits that even according to the fifth respondent proposal dated 04.04.2019, he has stated that the petitioner was appointed in sanctioned post and her job is required for effective functioning of the office and that she has been working here as a daily wager since 2001 and thereafter since 2012 as a consolidated employee. Hence, she needs to be regularised.

4. However, the said proposal was rejected by the second respondent, vide impugned order by simply referring about the G.O. Ms.No.74 P & R (F) dated 27.06.2013 and on the ground that as on 01.01.2006, she did not complete ten years. Further, the learned counsel submits that in an identical case this Court has passed an order in WP No.24289 of 2023 dated 25.08.2026. The learned petitioner counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu Battacharjee and Others Vs The state of Assam and Others reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529. Hence, prayed to allow the present writ petition.

5. Per contra the said contention was objected by the learned Government Advocate and would submit that as per G.O. Ms.74 P & R (F) dated 27.06.2013, the petitioner has not qualified to be appointed to that post, as the petitioner did not complete ten years as on 01.01.2006. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was only a daily wager of the employee and that she was not appointed in sanctioned post. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has been undertaking that she aware about the consolidated emoluments. Therefore, having fully aware about the nature of the employment and after joining the same the petitioner cannot turn around and seek for regularisation. Hence, prayed to dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.

7. While looking into the factual position the following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee since 05.07.2001 and it is also not in dispute that based upon the publication dated 31.05.2012 the petitioner participated in recruitment procedure and was again appointed on 02.06.2012 on consolidated pay. It is also not in dispute that the fifth respondent had sent a proposal to the second respondent on 04.04.2019. On perusal of the proposal, there is a reference about the nature of appointment and perpetual requirement for effective functioning of the office is mentioned. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has been functioning for more than 18 years.

8. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate would contend that there was one post of Data Entry Operator which was sanctioned at the time of scheme, namely, Tamil Nadu Bio-Diversity Conservation and Greening Project ; But at the time of completion of the project, the said one post was filled as per the direction of this Court, to one Tmt.R.Ramalakshmi vide G.O.

(D). No.124 dated 16.07.2024. Therefore, it is the specific submission of the learned Government Advocate that there are no sanctioned post. But there is no dispute by the respondent about the fact that the petitioner have been working since 2001 as a daily wager, and thereafter on consolidated pay from 2012.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court about the appointment order issued by the fifth respondent. Though the appointment order mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator in Coimbatore Genetics DMU on contract / Temporary basis, her continuous employment till today has not been denied. The very proposal of the fifth respondent would clearly manifest her continuous engagement.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others Vs. The State of Assam and others (cited supra), wherein it was observed as under: “74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the tendency of the State to take mechanical shelter under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to employees who had been performing work of a permanent and essential nature for long years. This Court observed as follows: -

“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra)

does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater

responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in

Uma Devi

(supra) sought to curtail the

practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish

between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no

vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are

meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”

75. …….

76. What emerges from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot rely upon the mere form of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who have served it for long years. The consistent thread running through these judgments is that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that the State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.”

11. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer that a similarly placed person one Tmt.R.Ramalakshmi, to whom the petitioner relies, has also been regularised as per order of this Court in WA No.2731 of 2018. But it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that in one sanction post has already been filled through R.Ramalakshmi. However, considering the fact that the petitioner as well as R.Ramalakshmi were appointed as Data Entry Operator in the year of 2012 and has been continuously functioning in that capacity, all of a sudden if the petitioner is singled out then the same would affect Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is also entitled to have a benefit as that of R.Ramalaksmi as ordered in G.O.(D). No.124 dated 16.07.2024 otherwise the right of equality of the petitioner would be affected. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order is in contravention to the order of the Division Bench of this Court.

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the second respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularise the petitioner as Date Entry Operator on completion of ten years from the date of initial date of appointment of the petitioner with all consequential attendant benefits. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MTL

To

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Climate Change & Forest Department, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Department) Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

3. The Chief Principal Conservator of Forests, (Afforestation) & Chief Project Director of Tamil Nadu Bio Diversity Conservation & Greening Project, JFM Centre, Velachery Main Road, Chennai - 600 032.

4. The Conservator of Forests Forest Genetics Circle, Coimbatore.

5. The Deputy Conservator of Forests Forest Genetics Division, Coimbatore.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. MTL WP No. 19160 of 2023 AND WMP No. 38911 OF 2024 16-09-2026