Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Chinnathambi on 2 September, 2021
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.Nos.670 and 710 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.3507 and 3917 of 2021
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Revenue Department
Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
3.The District Collector
Salem, Salem District
4.The Tahsildar
Yercadu
Yercadu Taluk, Salem District .. Appellants in both the
Writ Appeals
Vs.
P.Chinnathambi .. Respondent in W.A.
No.670 of 2021
F.John Bosco .. Respondent in W.A.
No.710 of 2021
***
Prayer : Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 04.05.2017 made in W.P.No.10031 of 2013 and 11348 of
2013.
***
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
in both WAs State Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.N.Kolandaivelu
in both WAs
COMMON JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
These intra-court appeals are instituted by the State against the
orders of the learned single Judge dated 04.05.2017 made in
W.P.Nos.10031 of 2013 and 11348 of 2013, wherein the writ court,
directed the appellants herein to regularise the services of the
respondents herein/writ petitioners from the date of their completion of
five years of service from their initial appointment.
2. P.Chinnathambi, the respondent in W.A. No.670/2021 has filed
W.P. No.10031 of 2013. F.John Bosco, respondent in W.A. No.710/2021
has filed W.P. No.11348 of 2013. The respondents in W.A. No.670/2021
W.A. No.710/2021 were originally appointed as Masalchi and Night
Watchman on 13.01.1982 and 29.01.1983 respectively, from a reference
by the District Employment Exchange office. Their services were
regularised as Masalchi and Night Watchman on 13.01.1987 and
29.01.1988 respectively by the proceedings of the Assistant Collector,
Salem. As on the said date, the posts of Masalchi and Night Watchman
were sanctioned posts.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
3. While so, G.O. (Ms) No.388 Revenue (Service 8(2) Department
dated 20.07.2007 was issued. The relevant portion of the said G.O. reads
thus:
"3/ mjw;fpz';f. 1987?Mk; Mz;L muR
gzpeilKiwE}y; bjhFjp?1?,y; cs;s jkpH;ehL khepy
kw;Wk; rhh;epiyg;gzp tpjpfspd; ,uz;lhk; gFjpapy;
ml';fpa[s;s bghJ tpjp 48?,d; fPH; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s
mjpfhu';fspd;fPH; nkjF jkpH;ehL MSeh; mth;fs;.
nryk; khtl;l tUtha; myfpy;. khtl;l ntiy
tha;g;gfk; K:yk; bjhpt[ bra;ag;gl;L. Vw;fhL tl;lhl;rpah;
mYtyfj;jpy;. jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; 29/1/1983 Kw;gfy;
Kjy; ,ut[f;fhtyuhfg; gzpg[hpa[k; jpU/vg;/$hd; gh!;nfh
vd;gthpd; gzpapida[k;. kw;Wk; mnj mYtyfj;jpy;
jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; 13/1/1982 gpw;gfy; Kjy;
krhy;rpahf gzpg[hpa[k; jpU/g/rpd;dj;jk;gp Mfpa ,UtuJ
gzpapida[k;. 1/1/2006 Kw;gfy; Kjy; tud;Kiw
bra;jw;nfJthf. mth;fspd; bghUl;L jkpH;ehL
mog;gilg;gzp rpwg;g[ tpjpfspy; tpjp 5(1) (taJ
tuk;g[)?I jsh;t[ bra;J gzp tud;Kiw bra;J
,jd;K:yk; MizapLfpwhh;/ nkYk; gzg;gaid
bghWj;jtiu ,t;thiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy;
tH';fg;gLk; vdt[k; murhy; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/"
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
4. The contention of the writ petitioners were that the services of
several employees, who were appointed during the same time, were
regularised on completion of five years of service. Therefore, the writ
petitioners' services also should have been regularised, either from the
date of their appointment or the date on which they completed the five
years of service. The appellants have issued the above Government
Order, after the petitioners have completed more than 22 years of
service, depriving the benefits, that ought to have been extended to the
writ petitioners. The writ court also had found that the appointment of
the respondents were through the District Employment Exchange and
there was no irregularity in the appointment. The services of others who
joined during the relevant period were all regularised after completion of
five years. Hence the writ court allowed the writ petitions filed by the
respondents herein vide order dated 04.05.2017. The relevant portion of
the order of the writ court reads thus:
" 5. The respondents are unable to furnish any reason
for restricting the regularization of the services with effect
from 01.01.2006. The date from which the regularization was
extended to the petitioner has no relevance and no nexus.
Such being the factum of the case, the Writ petition deserves
to be considered and accordingly the Impugned Government
Order in G.O.Ms.388 Revenue (Personnel) 8(2) Department
dated 20.07.2007 is quashed to the limited extent of date of
regularization. The Sub Collector, Salem in his proceedings
dated 17.1.1989, regularized the service of the Writ Petitioner
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
on completion of his five years of service and the completion of
five years falls on 13.01.1987. Accordingly the service of the
petitioner is to be regularized with effect from 13.01.1987.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded
that the Writ Petitioner will not claim any arrears of pay
consequent to the retrospective regularization. All Notional
benefits consequent to the retrospective regularization shall be
extended to the Writ Petitioner and monetary benefits can be
granted prospectively.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed."
Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred these intra-court
appeals.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is relevant to note that in Proceedings Na. Ka.
No.26157/87/A3 dated 17.01.1989, the Assistant Collector, Salem, had
already regularised the appointment of the writ petitioners with effect
from 14.1.87 and 30.1.88 respectively and directed the appellants to fix
time scale of pay from the date of regularisation and disburse them
arrears of salary. Following the same, the Tahsildar, Yercaud, vide
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
Proceedings in Na.Ka. No.646/89/B dated 20.05.1989 had issued orders
fixing the pay and granting increment for the writ petitioners, who were
appointed as Masalchi and Night Watchman.
7. Further in G.O. (Ms) No.1797 Revenue Department dated
19.10.1989, the Government ratified the retention of the staff, namely
Masalchi and Night Watchman from 31.08.1989 in anticipation of the
sanction of the said posts. While so, there is no reason as to why the
impugned G.O. has been passed regularising the services of the writ
petitioners only from the year 2006. The above act of issuing an order
re-regularising the staff, who were already regularised by the authorities
in the year 1989 only shows the callous attitude and lack of application of
minds by the authorities.
8. When the respondents have already been fixed in the time scale
of pay and have been receiving the said salary, the question of claiming
arrears of pay will not apply. Once they are regularised in the year 1989
and the time scale has been fixed, they are also entitled to the benefit of
pension.
9. The judgment of the Full Bench referred to by the learned
Special Government Pleader in the Government of Tamil Nadu,
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
represented by Secretary to Government vs. R.Kaliyamoorthy
reported in 2019 (6) CPC 705 is not applicable to the instant case, as
the appointment and regularisation of the respondents/writ petitioners
were well prior to the cut-off date, namely 01.04.2003. In view of the
above, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the Government and the
same are liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
02.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Asr
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Revenue Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
3.The District Collector
Salem, Salem District
4.The Tahsildar
Yercadu
Yercadu Taluk, Salem District
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/8
W.A.Nos.670 & 710 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr
W.A.Nos.670 and 710 of 2021 and
C.M.P. Nos.3507 and 3917 of 2021
02.09.2021
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/8
