CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that placing an employee in a higher post and extracting work on condition that such placing will not entitle for salary matching the post is contrary to the law and public policy.
The observation was made by Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan while allowing a petition filed by K T Bhalakrishnan, a retired employee of the Khadi and Village Industries Board, praying for the court to regularise his post as typist from the year he was placed in such a position.
The petitioner joined as watchman in the Khadi and Village Industries Board in 1989.
Since he had adequate educational qualification along with typewriting skills, he was placed in the post of typist on October 23, 2008, but on condition of not claiming any right for the regular post and the attendant benefits.
He was promoted as typist on July 18, 2016. In 2020, the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant was prepared but he was not considered for want of adequate years of service as typist.
He had given representations even before retirement (on February 28, 2023) for regularising his service as typist from the year 2008 and promote him to the post of assistant by including his name in the 2020 panel.
His request was rejected by the chief executive officer (CEO) of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board on April 4, 2024. Challenging this order, he filed the petition in the court.
Advocate Balan Haridas appeared for the petitioner.
The judge reasoned that the appointment of the petitioner as typist can be treated as “substantive appointment” because it has been made to fill a “substantive post” and he is entitled for regularisation with monetary benefits. “The stopgap arrangement that was made to place the petitioner on the higher post, on condition that he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy,” the judge reasoned.
Quashing the rejection order of the CEO, the judge directed the respondent authorities to regularise his service as typist from 2008 and pay the difference in pay from 2008 to 2016 within 12 weeks.
The judge also directed the respondents to promote him to the post of assistant notionally from April 2020 without monetary benefits but it can be considered for terminal and pension benefits.