Madras High Court
S.Krishnan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 December, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)NO.2193 OF 2021
S.Krishnan :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Devakkottai Municipality,
Sivagangai District. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.13718 of 2021, dated 06.10.2021
For Appellant :Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For Respondents :Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
1 and 2 Addl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent-3 :Mr.J.Anandkumar
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
*********
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by this
Court in W.P(MD)No.13718 of 2021, dated 06.10.2021.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The Petitioner was a daily-waged employee under the third
respondent Municipality. When the Government proposes to
regularize the services of the daily waged employees, G.O(Ms)No.
71, MAWS Department, dated 5.5.1998 and G.O(Ms)No.21, dated
21.02.2006 has been issued. Based on the above said Government
Orders, the service of the Petitioner was regularized w.e.f.
17.03.2006. The said regularization was accepted and the Petitioner
continued in service till he attained superannuation, which was in
the year 2017. After retirement, the Petitioner made a
representation on 14.7.2021, to consider the Petitioner's claim for
regularization w.e.f.1997, which is after 15 years from the date or
regularization, namely in the year 2006. Based on the decision of
the Honourable Supreme Court of India, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition stating that there was no explanation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the delay in claiming regularization before retirement, but also
there is delay in making the claim even after the retirement. Since
there was absolutely no reasons furnished by the Petitioner and also
the fact that the Petitioner has accepted the regularization in the
year 2006 without any objection and now seeking the relief of
regulaization of service from the year 1997, is not acceptable.
There is no merit in the case and thus the Writ Appeal fails.
4.For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
No costs.
[P.S.N.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
16.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Devakkottai Municipality,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.2193 OF 2021
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
