Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 October, 2022
W.A.No.638 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.638 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.4488 of 2022
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Chief Accounts Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003. .. Appellants
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.Y.Rangan .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 27.09.2021 made in W.P.No.29383 of 2008.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Ms.P.T.Rama Devi
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendran
Additional Government Pleader
for R1
Mr.R.Prem Narayan for R2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J)
1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of
Chennai, the second respondent in the writ petition, aggrieved by the
order of learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2021. By the Order, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the second
respondent / writ petitioner. The writ petition questioned the order of
the appellant / Corporation dated 07.10.2008 by which it was
communicated to the writ petitioner that his request to consider him
as regular Junior Assistant from the date of his appointment i.e., from
23.03.1979 cannot be acceded to.
2. Heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing on behalf of the appellant / Corporation,
Mr.M.Rajendran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
respondent and Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel for the second
respondent / writ petitioner.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are
that, the writ petitioner was appointed on daily rated basis in the
year 1971 and thereafter was regularly appointed to the post of
Junior Assistant in the year 1977 and was conferred with the regular
time scale of pay from 23.03.1979.
3.1. When the matter was taken up for regularization of the
services, the first respondent Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.283,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated
17.03.1988 admonished the action of the Corporation in appointing
these persons without prior approval of the Government, but
however, acceded to the request of regularizing their services of
totally 108 persons from the date of issuance of the order.
Accordingly, the writ petitioner was regularized in service from the
date of issue of the order i.e. from 17.03.1988.
3.2. The writ petitioner and the other employees submitted
representations to the appellant / Corporation aggrieved by the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
action of regularizing them from the date of G.O., while they have
been regularly working in the said post of Junior Assistant from the
year 1979. The said request was considered by the Council of the first
respondent Corporation by a resolution No. 505/1998 dated
26.06.1998 the appellant Corporation decided to grant the relief
prayed for by the writ petitioners and others by regularizing them
from their date of original appointment i.e. from the year 1979.
Accordingly, the order was passed on 27.07.1998 to regularize the
writ petitioner and other 107 Junior Assistants from the date of their
original appointment. Accordingly, the writ petitioner worked in the
said post and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.01.2006.
3.3. Thereafter, on 07.10.2008, an order was passed by the
appellant / Corporation stating that after the grant of the benefit from
their date of original appointment, the matter was taken up with the
Government for ratification but however by letter dated 08.12.2005,
the Government expressed its opinion and clarified that regularization
from the date of publication of G.O. would be appropriate and
therefore the resolution was sent back for reconsideration. It is in this
context, it is stated in the impugned order that the request for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
writ petitioner for regularization from the original date i.e.
23.03.1973 cannot be considered. Questioning the said order and the
original Government Order, the writ petition came to be filed.
4. The learned Single Judge after considering the said
aspects and after considering the fact that the date of taking up the
issue for confirmation of the employee cannot be the relevant date
while the initial appointment has been done in accordance with the
Rules allowed the writ petition. As against the said order, while the
Government did not file any appeal, the appellant / Corporation alone
has chosen to file the present appeal.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant /
Corporation has submitted that when the Government has not chosen
to ratify the regularization which is granted from the initial date of
appointment, the appellant / Corporation has no other option than to
revise the date with effect from the date of the Government Order
and when the employees had no vested right of regularization, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of
the Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent /
writ petitioner would submit that, in this case, the writ petitioner
retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2006 itself.
Two years after the retirement, without any opportunity or hearing
whatsoever the benefit which was already conferred on him was
withdrawn, that too, with erroneous reasons as if the petitioner was
seeking the benefit only then. He would therefore submit that the
learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and perused the material records of the case.
8. In this case, it can be seen that by an order dated
27.07.1998, the benefit of regularization from the initial date of
service is actually conferred by the appellant / Corporation. With that
benefit, the petitioner actually worked in the post and superannuated
on 31.01.2006. Thereafter, there was no occasion for the appellant /
Corporation to withdraw the date of actual regularization of service,
especially when the employee has retired from service. In that view
of the matter and also for the erroneous reasons contained in the
impugned order, as if the writ petitioner was seeking retrospective
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
regularization and as if the Corporation is rejecting the said request is
also factually incorrect. For the said reasons, we find that, the
reasoning by the learned Single Judge in quashing the said order and
allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner to be in order
and does not require interference.
9. It is also pertinent to state here that even though the
Government, which was opposing regularization from the inception of
service, has not chosen to prefer any appeal against the order of
learned Single Judge.
10. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is without any
merits and is accordingly dismissed. No Costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
12.10.2022
Index:No
ssm/19
To
The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.638 of 2022
Chennai – 600 009.
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
W.A.No.638 of 2022
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
