Madras High Court
L.Purushothaman vs The Secretary To Government on 5 August, 2021
W.A.No.1885/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1885 of 2021
L.Purushothaman .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
M.A. & W.S. Department (Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department),
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The Municipal Commissioner,
Vaniyambadi Municipality,
Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.
..Respondents/Respondents
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
the order dated 29.07.2020 in W.P.No.27903 of 2013.
***
For Appellant : Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
State Government Counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/6
W.A.No.1885/2021
JUDGEMENT
(Judgment was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The appellant is the writ petitioner and aggrieved by the order of
the writ Court dated 29.07.2020 in W.P.No.27903 of 2013, this appeal is
instituted by him.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Road Worker through the
Employment Exchange in the respondent Municipality in daily wages on
22.05.1989. The services of the similarly placed persons as that of the
appellant were regularized, subject to certain conditions, and
Government Orders were issued to that effect. As the petitioner was
regularized only from the date of the said Government Order, i.e., from
23.02.2006, based on G.O.Ms.No.21, M.A. & W.S. Department, he
sought a similar relief that was extended to the similarly placed persons
to regularize his service from the date of appointment. Thus, he
approached the writ Court seeking the said relief. The writ petitioner
was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
State Government Counsel and perused the materials placed before this
Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/6
W.A.No.1885/2021
4. Admittedly, the writ Court relied on the order of this Court in
T.Renganathan V. Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. (W.P.No.23587/2013, etc. dated 18.02.2020) to pass
the said order. The said order was taken on appeal in W.A.No.913 of
2020 and the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court vide order dated
09.10.2020 affirmed the said order and the relevant portion of the said
order reads as follows :
"2. A perusal of the same indicates that after citing of the
period of service, the appellant, whose name finds place in Sl.No.4
in the Tabular Chart, has been extended the benefit of regularisation
with effect form 23.02.2006.
3. The appellant, therefore, very well knew about the date
from which the benefit of regularisation was extended to him.
4. We can therefore infer that the appellant inspite of having
knowledge of the benefit of regularisation being curtailed only with
effect from 23.02.2006 did not choose to challenge the said order
and rather waited for more than 7 years to file the writ petition
giving rise to the present writ appeal, almost on the verge of his
retirement.
5. There is nothing on record to indicate that any effort was
made on the part of the appellant during this period to question the
correctness of the date of regularisation till he made the
representation in the year 2013.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that
as a matter of fact the claim of the appellant right from 1989
onwards had been on the same pedestal that has been extended to
the employees of other departments, and some employees of the
same department itself. Thus, it was a continuing benefit and the
acceptance of the regularisation does not in any way eclipse the
right of the appellant to claim the benefit of regularisation from a
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/6
W.A.No.1885/2021
prior date. In this regard, the contention on merits deserved to be
considered by the learned Single Judge.
7. He further submits that reliance placed by learned Single
Judge on the judgment of the Apex Court referred to in paragraph 9
of the impugned judgment does not in any way impede the claim of
the appellant inasmuch as the appellant has been regularised in
service in accordance with Rule. It is not the case of the
respondents that the appellant is deficient on any ground so as to
render him unqualified or ineligible.
8. Having considered the submissions raised, we find that
there is no valid explanation for having represented the matter as
late as in the year 2013 and then arrived before this Court by filing
a writ petition after almost seven years of the regularisation order.
9. The conclusion on this issue therefore by the learned Single
Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and refusal to exercise
discretion cannot be said to be unwarranted.
10. However, the refusal to exercise the discretion by the
High Court may not prevent the appellant from seeking any relief
from the Government and therefore, it will be open to the appellant
to seek such relief as may be admissible by approaching the
authorities on the administrative side, as further judicial review in
the matter does not appear to be permissible.
11. The writ appeal is consigned to records. No costs."
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
First Bench of this Court, this appeal is also consigned to records in
similar terms. No costs.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
05.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/6
W.A.No.1885/2021
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
M.A. & W.S. Department (Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department),
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3. The Municipal Commissioner,
Vaniyambadi Municipality,
Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/6
W.A.No.1885/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.1885 of 2021
05.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/6
