Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 October, 2022
W.A.No.554 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.554 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.4058 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.T.S.Dhanaraj .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 27.09.2021 made in W.P.No.23123 of 2008.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 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.
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
respondent and Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel for the second
respondent / writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 of 2022
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 1969 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 02.03.1979.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 of 2022
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
31.08.2006.
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, the petitioner's date of regularisation was sought to be
reckoned from the dated of the GO, instead of the original date, that
is, stated in the impugned order that the request for the writ
petitioner for regularization from the original date i.e. 02.03.1979.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 of 2022
Questioning the same 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent /
writ petitioner would submit that, in this case, the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 of 2022
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 31.08.2006. 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. For the said
reason, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 of 2022
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,
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.554 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
W.A.No.554 of 2022
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
