18 Years as a Daily-Wage Watchman: Supreme Court Says Regularisation Runs From Completion of 10 Years

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has restored a Madras High Court Single Judge's order directing that a daily-wage watchman, appointed in 1992 through the employment exchange, be regularised from the date he completed 10 years of service under G.O. No. 22 of 2006, not from 2010 when the State actually regularised him. It held that the State cannot pick and choose between similarly placed employees.

The appellant was sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Tirunelveli and appointed on 26 August 1992 as a daily wages watchman on a temporary basis after a selection process. Following an announcement by the Chief Minister in February 2006, the State issued G.O. No. 22 dated 28 February 2006 directing regularisation of daily-wage employees who had rendered 10 years of service as on 1 January 2006. The appellant was, however, regularised only with effect from 17 September 2010 by G.O.Ms. No. 187, after about 18 years.

On 2 July 2012 a Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that his regularisation should run from the date he completed 10 years, with time-scale pay and arrears. On 17 April 2015 a Division Bench allowed the State's writ appeal, treating the effective date as a matter of policy and G.O. No. 187 as prospective. The State also relied on a later G.O. (Ms) No. 74 dated 27 June 2013.

The Key Question Before the Court

Should an employee who satisfied G.O. No. 22 be regularised from the date he completed 10 years, or only from the later date the State chose?

G.O. No. 22, Later Orders and Equal Treatment

The Court held G.O. No. 74 inapplicable: it was issued after the appellant had been regularised and after his writ petition was decided, its stated reasons did not apply to him, and it dealt with employees not yet regularised. On State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 03 SC CK 0037, (2017) 4 SCC 113, the Court found no basis to read a “full time” requirement into G.O. No. 22, and in any case the appellant was not a part-time worker and had come through the employment exchange.

The Full Bench decision in S. Dhanasekaran concerned backdoor entries; the appellant's appointment was not clandestine. Applying a policy meant for irregular appointments to him would be, the Court said, “to mistake form for substance.” Holding that “the intention expressed in G.O. No. 22 admits of no ambiguity” and that 1 January 2006 is the cut-off, the Court found the Division Bench wrong to interfere.

What the Court Actually Held

• The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge's order restored.
• G.O. No. 74 of 2013 does not govern the appellant.
• The appellant is entitled to all benefits under the Single Judge's order.
• The benefits are to be released within three months.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It protects long-serving daily-wage staff who were appointed through a regular selection process.
• It limits the State's ability to apply later policy orders to concluded claims.
• It reinforces equal treatment among peers covered by the same regularisation scheme.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Employees

• Show the mode of appointment (employment exchange, selection) to distinguish backdoor entry cases.
• Rely on the scheme's cut-off date and its plain terms.

For the State

• Later G.O.s cannot be used to dilute rights that crystallised under an earlier scheme.
• Treat similarly placed employees uniformly under the same policy.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

It regularised the appellant only from 2010, though he qualified under G.O. No. 22, which looked to 10 years of service as on 1 January 2006.

No. The Court found no basis for a full-time requirement and noted the appellant was not part-time in any case.

Within three months from the date of the judgment.

Conclusion