- (1.) The order of regularisation regularising the services of the writ petitioner from 18.03.2001 is under challenge in the writ petition and the writ petitioner is seeking a direction to regularise the services retrospectively with effect from the date on which the writ petitioner had completed one year of service from the consolidated pay salary appointment.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner state that the Government had issued orders in G.O. No.125, dated 27.05.1999 granting the benefit of regularisation on completion of one year of service in the consolidated pay salary. The cases of the similarly placed candidates were considered by the respondents and the benefit of retrospective regularisation was granted to the similarly placed persons as that of the writ petitioner. Thus, the counsel for the writ petitioner state that the very same benefit is to be granted to the writ petitioner also. The similar case referred by the writ petitioner was granted in proceedings,dated 28.11.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the similar benefit was granted to many other persons also, during the year 2001.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent states that the writ petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay and the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. The initial appointment was made without following the procedures contemplated and therefore, the benefit of regularisation itself was a concession granted to the writ petitioner. Thus, the benefit of retrospective regularisation cannot be granted.;