Madras High Court· 28 July 2026
Can a daily wage employee regularised by relaxing the service rules seek retrospective regularisation?
The Secretary to Government v. L. Mageswaran
2026:MHC:3154 · WA No. 1946 of 2026
Coram: Justice S. M. Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar
Answer
No. Regularisation and permanent absorption are to be granted strictly in accordance with the service rules. Where the employee was engaged only as an NMR on a need basis, no appointment order was issued to him and he was not appointed under the recruitment rules in force, and the regularisation itself is a concession extended by the Government by relaxing those rules, seeking retrospective regularisation is beyond the scope of the service rules applicable; the length of services per se would not constitute a ground to seek permanent absorption from the date on which he completed three years of daily wage engagement.
Headnote
Constitution of India — Article 226 — Articles 14 and 16 — Regularisation of daily wage engagement — Retrospective regularisation — Backdoor appointments — Equal opportunity in public employment —
Constitution of India — Article 226 — Judicial review — No direction to regularise backdoor appointments —
Held: Regularisation and permanent absorption are to be granted strictly in accordance with the service rules; judicial review cannot direct regularisation of temporary, contractual or illegal appointments. (¶3, 4)
Constitution of India — Articles 14 and 16 — Retrospective regularisation — Length of services no ground —
Held further: Where regularisation is itself a concession granted by relaxing the rules, length of services per se is no ground for permanent absorption or for retrospective regularisation. Writ appeal allowed. (¶2, 7, 9)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 2State preferred the present Writ Appeal. The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking retrospective regularisation with effect from 30.06.1998, the date on which he has completed three years of daily wage engagement. The respondent was engaged as NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) in the highways department. Subsequently, the service of the respondent was regularised with effect from 06.05.2013 in the post of Gang Mazdoor in the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay. The said order of grant of regularisation was issued by relaxing Special Rules 4(a), 51 and 22 for grant of regularisation. The order of regularisation remains unchallenged. Accepting the order of regularisation, the respondent continued in silence. He made a representation after a lapse of three years from the date of regularisation on 29.12.2016, claiming that his services should be regularised retrospectively with effect from 30.06.1998. The said representation was rejected by the respondents mainly on the ground that the order passed by the High Court in the year 2003 is of no avail to the respondent to seek retrospective regularisation. That apart, the case of the respondent was regularised by relaxing the necessary rules, since initially he was not engaged or appointed under the recruitment rules in force. Even no appointment order was issued to the respondent. He was engaged only as an NMR on a need basis. Thus, the regularisation itself is a concession extended by the Government and seeking retrospective regularisation is beyond the scope of the service rules applicable.
Paragraph 3Regularisation and permanent absorption are to be granted strictly in accordance with the service rules. Irregular, illegal and backdoor appointments cannot be regularised, since such regularisation would result in infringement of the basic rights of the eligible meritorious candidates who are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process in accordance with the rules and through the rules of reservation. Constitutional schemes of appointment are to be made in order to preserve the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment. Large scale illegal appointments would result in affecting the rights of many eligible candidates.
Paragraph 7The Government also subsequently realised that such temporary engagements ought to be made on a need basis and on terms and conditions. Mere temporary engagements/appointments per se would not confer any right to an employee to seek regularisation. Pertinently, these employees accepting the terms and conditions of temporary/contractual/casual employment joined the Department, and after serving for some time, they cannot turn around and claim regularisation in violation of the terms and conditions agreed by them to serve as contractual/temporary/casual employees. Once the terms and conditions are accepted, it is binding on the parties and therefore, the length of services per se would not constitute a ground to seek permanent absorption in the Department.
Acts & Sections
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 16 of the Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of The Secretary to Government v. L. Mageswaran — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →