Madras High Court

C.Chinappa vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 June, 2023

                                                                            W.P.No.12086 of 2020



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 28.06.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                              W.P.No.12086 of 2020
                                                      and
                                             W.M.P.No.14823 of 2020
                     C.Chinappa                                           .. Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
                       Animal Husbandry, Dairy and
                           Fisheries Department,
                       Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

                     2.The Director,
                       Directorate of Animal Husbandry and
                           Veterinary Service,
                       DMS Complex, 3rd Floor Block 2,
                       Annasalai, Teynampet,
                       Chennai-600 018.

                     3.The Joint Director of Animal Husbandry,
                       District Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services,
                       Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

                     4.The Assistant Director,
                       Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services,
                       Krishnagiri District.                              .. Respondents

                     _________
                     Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      W.P.No.12086 of 2020



                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
                     impugned government order viz., G.O.Ms.No.117, Animal Husbandry,
                     Dairy and Fisheries Department, dated 28.08.2008 issued by the first
                     respondent herein and quash the same in so far relates to regularizing the
                     service of the petitioner from the date of issuance of government order
                     and not from the date of his initial appointment and further direct the
                     respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his
                     initial appointment viz., 10.07.2000 with all consequential benefits viz.,
                     refixation of scale of pay, seniority and pension etc.
                                        For Petitioner     :     Mr.V.Suthakar

                                        For Respondents :        Mr.G.Nanmaran
                                                                 Special Government Pleader

                                                               ORDER

Heard Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents. Perused the materials available on record.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as

casual labour on 10.11.1999 in Animal Husbandry Department. After

completion of number of years as casual labour, he approached the Tamil

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12086 of 2020

Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained certain directions for

regulation of his services. After that, he was appointed as Animal

Husbandry Assistant with effect from 10.07.2000.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was appointed

as Animal Husbandry Assistant, his services were not regularized on the

ground that specific government order is required for relaxation of age,

reservation and educational qualification. At that stage, the Government

of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.(Ms).No.117, Animal Husbandry, Dairying

and Fisheries (AH7) Department, dated 28.08.2008, granting

regularization to several casual employees from the date of issue of the

Government Order, i.e., 28.08.2008 and not from the date of their

original appointment. The petitioner gave several representations from

2008 onwards to the respondents to give regularization from the date of

initial appointment. As the respondents failed to take any action, the

petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12086 of 2020

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner was initially appointed as casual labour and based on the

policy decision of the Government, his service was regularized vide

G.O.(Ms).No.117, dated 28.08.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that under the circumstances, several similarly situated

persons filed writ petitions before this Court challenging

G.O.(Ms).No.117, dated 28.08.2008, insofar as it denies the

regularization from the date of their initial appointment and the time

scale of pay and consequential denial of the annual increment from the

said date. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue

involved in this writ petition is covered by the decision of a learned

Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.226 and 491 of 2012, dated

05.11.2013.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief

as prayed for in the writ petition. However, with regard to the order

passed by the learned Division Bench as stated supra, learned Special

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12086 of 2020

Government Pleader would submit that the issue raised in the writ

appeals is identical as that of the issue raised in the present writ petition.

7. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for

either side and upon careful perusal of the entire material on record, it is

appropriate to extract hereinunder the relevant portion of the decision of

the learned Division Bench, dated 05.11.2013 in W.A.Nos.226 and 491

of 2012:

“14.For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Writ Court in W.P.No.26753 of 2008 and 17559 of 2009 dated 28.09.2011 and 06.07.2011 respectively are set aside and the writ appeals are allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the appellants in the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant with effect from 21.08.1997 and 16.06.1999 respectively i.e. the date of appellants' joining in the regular post of Animal Husbandry Assistant and grant all the monetary benefits. If for any period, the appellants had been ousted for want of vacancy, the appellants shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit during that period but the same shall be taken into

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12086 of 2020

account for continuity of service. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No costs.”

8. On careful perusal of the same, in my considered view, it would

equally govern the issue now raised by the petitioner in the present writ

petition as such this Court is bound by the decision of the learned

Division Bench. Since the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely

governed by the order passed by the learned Division Bench and also the

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Department has

implemented the orders of the learned Division Bench in respect of

several similarly placed persons, this Court does not see any justification

for taking a different view in the matter.

9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed with the

following directions:

i. The impugned order in G.O.(Ms).No.117, Animal Husbandry,

Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department, dated 28.08.2008, is

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12086 of 2020

hereby set aside, insofar as it restricts regularization of service of

the petitioner with effect from the date of issue of the Government

Order;

ii. There shall be a direction to the respondents to grant regularization

to the petitioner from the date of his original appointment with all

monetary benefits like grant of annual increment, except the