Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its
2021 Latest Caselaw 17494 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 17494 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 August, 2021

Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 26 August, 2021
                                                                        W.P.No.4788 of 2009


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 26.08.2021

                                                    CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

                                               W.P. No.4788 of 2009
                1.S.Shanmugam

                2.K.Parthiban

                3.Mary Victoria Fathima

                4.A.Sundaram

                5.C.Gajendrababu

                6.M.Srinivasan

                7.D.Chandran

                8.P.Ulaganathan

                9.R.Rathakrishnan

                10.P.Chinnathambi

                11.V.Velan

                12.K.Vadivelu



                1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  W.P.No.4788 of 2009


                13.P.Velu

                14.A.Anandaraj

                15.M.Sundarraj
                                                                                        ...Petitioners
                                                         Vs.
                1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
                  Secretary to Government,
                  Higher Education Department,
                  Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

                2.The Principal Secretary,
                  Public Works Department,
                  Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

                3.The Director of Technical Education,
                  Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

                4.The Executive Engineer,
                  Technical Education Division,
                  Coimbatore.

                5.The Executive Engineer,
                  Technical Education Division,
                  Guindy, Chennai -25.
                                                                                       ...Respondents
                Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
                issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the First
                respondent's order made in, Paragraph-5 of G.O. Ms.No.122 Higher Education (B1)
                Department dated 26.03.1998 and Second Respondent's Letter No.12236/C2/2008-4,
                dated 5.9.2008, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to



                2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                        W.P.No.4788 of 2009


                regularise the services of the petitioners herein from the date of completion of ten
                years of casual labourer services and to revise and refix the scale of pay by arriving at
                the notional increment till the date of Government Order and to extend all
                consequential benefits forthwith.
                                    For Petitioner      : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
                                    For Respondents    : Mr.C.Selvaraj,
                                                          Government Advocate

                                                         ********
                                                         ORDER

There are 15 petitioners before me who were all appointed as causal labourers

with R5/Executive Engineer, Technical Education Division, Guindy, Chennai -25.

Upon their completion of ten (10) years of service, the services of the petitioners were

regularized by way of Government Order in G.O. No.122, Higher Education (B1)

Department dated 26.03.1998 (G.O.). The regularization was itself made with effect

from 01.01.1986, 01.01.1988, 01.01.1989 & 01.01.1990 in the cases of the various

petitioners before me, taking into account the services rendered by the petitioners for a

period of one decade.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to Clause 5 of the said G.O whereunder,

while regularizing the services of the petitioners upon completion of 10 years of

service, pay fixation was directed from the date of regularization, however, with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.4788 of 2009

caveat that monetary benefits shall be given effect to only from the date of issuance of

the Government Order. The petitioners are aggrieved by Clause 5 of the G.O as

aforesaid and seek a quash of the G.O to this extent, with a consequential direction

that not only have their services been regularized from the dates stipulated but that the

scales of pay also stands revised and refixed from date of regularization. They thus

seek computation of notional increments till the date of G.O and for all consequential

benefits to be given to them.

3. The respondents have filed a counter wherein they would state that the

Government Order was, in fact, beneficial to the petitioners herein and thus, according

to learned Government Advocate, there is no warrant or justification for interference

in the same.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused the materials available on record

including the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.168 and 169

of 2012 dated 08.08.2014 in the case of A.Babysabeena and others Vs. The State of

Tamil Nadu and others, which appears to clinch the issue arising in this case. The

challenge in that matter was to Government Order in G.O. No.334 Public Works

Department dated 19.10.2007, whereunder the services of the appellants therein had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.4788 of 2009

been regularized upon completion of ten years of casual service and their pay revised

and refixed, however only with effect from the date of that Government Order. The

argument of the petitioner in that case was similar to the one before me, that the

notional fixation of pay be with retrospective effect from date of regularization with

monetary benefits and this prayer came to be accepted by the Bench. Thus, the Bench

granted notional fixation of pay retrospectively upon completion of a decade of

service with fixation of notional monetary benefits for the express purpose that the

entire service period be counted for the purpose of service benefits including monetary

benefits.

5. This issue appears to have engaged the attention of the Courts for some time

now. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially the relief sought

for by similarly placed petitioners was wide insofar as a payout of monetary benefits

for the period for which service has been regularised was also sought. However, this

plea had been negatived with the Court and the petitioners thereafter acquiesced to the

position that the benefits could be notionally fixed in order that the service period be

counted for subsequent benefits including monetary benefits. This, in effect, is the

ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of A. Babysabeena (Supra). In

conclusion, the Bench allows the Writ Appeals directing the respondents 'to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.4788 of 2009

notionally fix the pay of the appellants/petitioners retrospectively with effect from the

date of completion of 10 years of service as NMRs, with monetary benefits from the

date of the Government Order, dated 19.10.2007, as it has been extended to others

in G.O. Ms.No.124, Public Works Department, dated 15.05.2008.' The exercise was

directed to be commenced and completed within a period of eight weeks from date of

receipt of a copy of that order. This decision has been confirmed and the Special

Leave Petitions filed by the State in SLP. Nos.9122 & 9123 of 2016 dismissed by the

Hon'ble Court on 29.06.2016, both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Subsequent to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, G.O. Ms No.235 dated 30.11.2017

has been passed by the State giving effect to the decision.

6. The above decision applies on all fours to the present case insofar as there

appears to be perfect identity between the facts as well as legal submissions advanced.

In fact, the counter affidavit filed by the State is dated 2010, prior to the decision of

the Division Bench which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. In the light of the discussion as aforesaid, this Writ Petition is allowed and

there is a direction to the State to refix the pay including notional benefits in the cases

of all the petitioners from the date of regularisation without there being any actual pay

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.4788 of 2009

out and this exercise will be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from today.

No costs.

26.08.2021 rkp Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

2.The Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

3.The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

4.The Executive Engineer, Technical Education Division, Coimbatore.

5.The Executive Engineer, Technical Education Division, Guindy, Chennai -25.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.4788 of 2009

DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.

rkp

W.P. No.4788 of 2009

26.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter