Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs A.Tamilarasan on 7 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.373 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.04.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.373 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD).No.2296 of 2018
1. The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Tax and Registration Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
3. The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Collectorate, Karur.
... Appellants/Respondents
Vs
A.Tamilarasan
... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 16.12.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7473 of 2010.
__________
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.373 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.K.Sathiyasingh,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Additional Advocate
General, assisted by Mr.K.Sathiyasingh, learned Additional Government
Pleader, appearing for the appellants and also Mr.B.Saravanan, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner.
2. The Government has come forward to file this Writ Appeal, being
aggrieved by the direction issued in the writ petition by directing the
respondent-writ petitioner to be brought under regular service from
05.07.2012 and from 28.04.1989 to 05.07.2012, the services as a temporary
masalgi shall be taken into account for the purpose of continuity of service
and accordingly, the service benefit should be calculated. The Court further
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.373 of 2018
held that the respondent-writ petitioner is not entitled to get any salary
difference by virtue of the regularization of service from 28.04.1989 to
05.07.2012.
3. In our considered view, such a direction could not have been issued
because the respondent-writ petitioner was regularized solely based upon
the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel
and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. The
Government Order was based upon the announcement made by the then
Hon'ble Chief Minister on 28.02.2006, by which, the Government took a
decision that the services of the daily wage employees working in all the
Government departments who have rendered ten years as on 01.01.2006 be
regularized by appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in
accordance with the service conditions prescribed for the post concerned
subject to the condition that they are otherwise qualified to the post.
4. The said Government Order was applied to the case of the
respondent and his services have been regularized with effect from
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.373 of 2018
05.07.2012. If such is the case, the respondent-writ petitioner cannot claim
any benefits anterior to the said date of regularization namely 05.07.2012,
which the respondent-writ petitioner had accepted without any demur and
continued to serve the department. As already observed, the decision to
regularize temporary employees who were completed ten years of service
working in various Government departments, is the policy decision taken by
the Government and therefore, the Court cannot add conditions which are
not prescribed in the Government order. More particularly, when the
Government order was passed to alleviate the sufferings of the temporary
staff who were working for a period of ten years. Therefore, the direction
issued in the writ petition called for interference.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in
the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
07.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.373 of 2018
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Commercial Tax and Registration Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
3. The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Collectorate, Karur.
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.373 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
W.A.(MD) No.373 of 2018
07.04.2021
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
