Madras High Court
M.Mariappan vs The Commissioner on 31 October, 2022
W.P(MD)No.20818 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD).No.20818 of 2017
M.Mariappan,
: Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
(Municipal Administration),
Chepauk,
Chennai - 05
2. The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli - 627 001
: Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.C3/12744/2010, dated 22.03.2017 and quash the same and further
directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service as per
G.O.Ms.No.341, dated 24.07.2007, passed by the Municipal Administration
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20818 of 2017
and Water Supply Department.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
ORDER
This writ petition had been filed for issuance of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.C3/12744/2010, dated 22.03.2017 and to direct the respondents to
regularize the petitioner's service as per G.O.Ms.No. 341, dated 24.07.2007,
passed by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner hails from poor Adi
Dravidar family. He was appointed as daily wage employee in the second
respondent Corporation on 06.02.1996. The petitioner was implicated in a
criminal case as eighth accused for the alleged offences under Section 395
read with 10(b) IPC by the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station,
Tirunelveli. The petitioner was convicted in the criminal case in S.C.No.212
of 2005, dated 26.03.2007. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20818 of 2017
Crl.A.No.217 of 2007 before the Madras High Court. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner was placed under suspension. In the meanwhile, the Department
had passed the G.O.Ms.No.341, dated 24.07.2007, through which, 79 Daily
Wage workers as unskilled workers and the petitioner's name is in the
regularization list. In the criminal appeal, vide judgment dated 22.10.2010,
the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the first respondent along with the acquittal order to grant
regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.341. Since the same was not considered, the
petitioner filed a petition in W.P.(MD)No. 17016 of 2014 and this Court
dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an
Appeal in W.A(MD)No.92 of 2015. The Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the
writ appeal and directed the respondents therein to consider and pass orders.
Based on the judgment, the present impugned order came to be passed. The
respondents declined to regularize the service of the petitioner by stating that
the petitioner has absented unauthorizedly and hence the petitioner is not
entitled for regularization.
3. The respondents have filed counter reiterating the same reason as
stated in the impugned order. Since the petitioner has unauthorizedly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20818 of 2017
absented for more than thirteen years, the respondents claimed that the
petitioner's case cannot be considered for regularization.
4.Heard Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.C.Baskaran, Government Advocate (Civil Side) for the
respondents and perused the records.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner was unauthorizedly absented for 13 years, which includes the
period of suspension and conviction and the petitioner claims to regularize the
said period after acquittal.
6. As per the fundamental rules, whenever an employee is acquitted in a
criminal case, then the employee is entitled to regularize for the period where
the employee was out of employment due to pendency of a criminal case. In
the present case, since the petitioner was not regularized, the respondents
have refused to apply the fundamental rules and therefore, the impugned order
is set aside. Since as per G.O.Ms.341 the petitioner's name is in the list for
regularization, the respondents ought to regularize the petitioner. Thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20818 of 2017
the respondents are directed to regularize the period when the petitioner was
out of employment period as per the Fundamental Rule 54, within a period of
eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is
made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages for the period
of absence under the principle of “No Work No Pay”. The petitioner is
entitled to continuity of service alone.
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
31.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
lr
To
1. The Commissioner,
(Municipal Administration),
Chepauk,
Chennai - 05
2. The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli Corporation,
Tirunelveli - 627 001
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20818 of 2017
S.SRIMATHY, J.
lr
W.P(MD).No.20818 of 2017
31.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
