Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs V.Pattammal on 4 January, 2023
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
and CMP.No.16390 of 2018
1. The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 6.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Tiruvellore District.
4. The Headmaster,
Minjur Panchayat Union Primary School,
Ponneri (South) Tiruvallur District. ...appellants
Vs.
V.Pattammal ...respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of this Court dated 17.07.2012 in WP.No.18339 of 2012.
For appellants : Mr.G.Ameedeus, G.A.
For respondent : Mr.R.S.Anandan
for Ms.K.Revathy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/5
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J)
The Government is on appeal against the order of the Writ Court
allowing the Writ Petition and directing regularisation of the services of the
sole respondent.
2. The sole respondent claimed that she was appointed as a Sweeper
on 25.07.1980 on temporary basis and she has been working as such
continuously and her salary was increased from Rs.10/- per month to
Rs.60/- per month and thereafter to Rs.175/- per month. Claiming that she
has completed 27 years of service and she is entitled to the benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.22, P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006, the petitioner
sought for a Mandamus directing the Government to regularise her service.
3. When the Writ Petition came before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Paul
Vasanthakumar, as he then was, a statement was made by the learned
Additional Government Pleader to the effect that the issue is covered by the
judgment of this Court dated 03.08.2009 in WA.No.230 of 2009, which was
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the dismissal of SLP.No.1972
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/5
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
of 2009. Several other jugdments taking the similar view were also placed
before the Writ Court. The Writ Court taking note of the above judgments
allowed the Writ Petition and directed to regularisation.
4. We are surprised with the fact that the Government has chosen to
file an appeal against the order, which was passed based on the statement
made by the learned Additional Government Pleader with reference to the
applicability of certain judgments of this Court to the case on hand. It was
not a concession made by the learned Additional Government Pleader on
facts to enable the Government to contend that the learned Additional
Government Pleader, had no authority to give a concession.
5. We find that the judgment of the Writ Court was based on the
statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader as to the
applicability of some of the judgments of this Court to the case on hand.
Having made such a statement and induced the Writ Court to pass an order
in favour of the petitioner, it is really unfair on the part of the Government to
file the above appeal against the said order invoking subsequent G.O. viz.,
G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department,
dated 27.06.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/5
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
6. We find that G.O.Ms.No.74 is given retrospective effect from
01.01.2006. This would indirectly amount to overruling the judgments of
this Court, which were passed based on G.O.Ms.No.22, which is not
permissible in law. The executive order or instruction cannot be retrospective
so as to result in overruling the judgments of this Court based on the
position that prevailed when the orders were passed.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would attempt to rely
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2726 and
2779 of 2014, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the part time
employees are not entitled to regularisation.
8. We are in entire agreement with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, but the said judgment is not applicable on the facts to the
case on hand. We therefore not inclined to interfere with the Writ Court. The
Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
04.01.2023
Index : No
Speaking order: Yes
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/5
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
pvs
W.A.No.2089 of 2018
04.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/5
