Madras High Court
K.Thanasekaran vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 10 March, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos. 19674 of 2017 & 9584 of 2018
K.Thanasekaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
3. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Madurai Region, Madurai – 625 002.
4. The Special Officer,
A.2826 Shivaji Co-operative Stores Limited,
9/34, Thalaiyari Gurunathan Kovil Street,
Madurai – 625 001.
5. The President,
A.2826 Shivaji Co-operative Stores Limited,
9/34, Thalaiyari Gurunathan Kovil Street,
Madurai – 625 001. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
proceedings, dated 29.11.2012 issued by the 4th respondent which was confirmed
by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents herein to reimburse a sum of Rs. 1,09,221/- and pay the Gratuity, Part
Payment of Provident Fund and Leave Surrender Value to the Petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
quash the impugned proceedings, dated 29.12.2012, consequently direct the
respondents to reimburse a sum of Rs.1,09,221 and pay Gratuity and other
monetary benefits to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
appearing for R-1 to R-3 and Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel appearing
for R-4 & R-5. Perused the material documents available on record.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee in
the category of Assistant Salesman from 26.06.1982 and was paid a sum of Rs.7/-
per day commencing from 01.07.1982. Subsequently, the 5th respondent vide,
proceedings, dated 17.10.1988 has modified the salary in the category of
consolidated monthly pay of Rs.240/-, with effect from 01.10.1988. Thereafter,
the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 13.03.2007 had regularized the
petitioner's service, with effect from 12.03.2001 and the petitioner has retired
from service on attaining superannuation on 30.05.2015. The petitioner has
rendered 33 years of service.
4. The 4th respondent has passed the impugned order, dated
29.11.2012 to recover a sum of Rs.1,09,221/- by stating excess salary was paid to
the petitioner. The recovery order has granted installments of Rs.3,500/-per month
for 30 months and Rs.4221/- to be recovered in the month of November 2012.
Challenging the recovery order, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the same
was dismissed. The petitioner has preferred another revision petition under
Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and the same was
returned since it was filed belatedly.
5. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has not
completed 15 years of service, since the petitioner was regularized with effect
from 12.03.2001 and retired on 30.05.2015. The petitioner would be entitled to
selection grade on 30.05.2016, but the petitioner had retired on attaining
superannuation. The claim of the petitioner is that the service prior to
regularization ought to be taken into account for granting selection grade pay.
6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was initially
appointed as daily wager on 26.06.1982. Subsequently, the 5 th respondent vide,
proceedings, dated 17.10.1988 has modified the salary in the category of
consolidated monthly pay of Rs.240/-, with effect from 01.10.1988. In this order
the respondents have stated that the temporary appointment is changed in order to
regularize the appointment as Assistant Salesman the salary is fixed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
consolidated pay. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings, dated
13.03.2007 had regularized the petitioner's service, with effect from 12.03.2001
and has also stated that the regularization is subject to the pending “writs”. In this
order in the 2nd reference the respondents have referred to Justine case i.e.
“2. Orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras dated 24.10.2002 in
Writ Appeal No.2501/2001 and 2502/2001.”
The Writ Appeal No.2501/2001 is filed by L. Justine and Writ Appeal No. 2502/
2001 is filed by V. Haridass. It is unknown why the respondents have granted
regularization from 12.03.2001.
7. This issue of regularization of Cooperative society employees was
considered by a judgment passed by the Court in W.P.(MD)No.21440 of 2015,
dated 19.02.2021, where the Court has directed the Government to regularize the
left out employees and directed the Government to consider the persons who have
not filed any Writ Petitions for regularization. The relevant portion of judgment is
extracted here under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
“16. This is an unfortunate case where luck has played
its part. The Government took a decision to regularize the
services of nearly 35,000 employees who were appointed in
various Co-operative Societies by drawing a cut-off dated as
12.03.2001 and out of the same, the lucky 26,000 employees
got their services regularized and the rest of the employees
were facing the wrath of their destiny. They were eagerly ex-
pecting their services to be regularized like that of the simi-
larly place employees but bad luck came in their. The process
of regularization was undertaken even for the petitioners and
due to various administrative delays, it did not reach its logi-
cal end. By then there were huge shift in law with regard to il-
legal and irregular appointments.
37. In view of the above discussion, all the Writ
Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
a. All those Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the
case may be who have at the time of their appointment,
fulfilled their educational qualification, who have been
appointed in a sanctioned post within the cadre strength, and
are in regular scale of pay, are declared to have satisfied the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
substantial/mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule
149(1) of the Rules;
b. The appointments not being sponsored by the
employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the
Rules, will only make the appointments irregular and not
illegal;
c. All those Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the
case may be who have fulfilled the criteria stipulated in
Clause (a), shall be regularised by the Respondents by
issuing appropriate proceedings within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this Order by taking the
cut-off date as 12.03.2001;
d. The regularization of service of the
Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case may be will not
entail them with any additional monetary benefits except the
consequential benefits which flows from such regularization;
and e. The benefit of regularization that is extended to the
eligible Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case may be
shall also be extended to all those employees who are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
similarly placed even though they have not knocked the doors
of this Court.
Accordingly, the batch of writ petitions are disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.”
8. Based on this Judgment, the Government has issued Circular No.7
of 2021, dated 09.09.2021, thereby, considered to regularize all the employees
who have been recruited from 09.07.1980 to 11.03.2001. In this case, the
petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 and he is eligible to be considered. The
respondents have rightly considered and granted regularization. Even in the
aforesaid circular the employees who were appointed from 09.07.1980 to
11.03.2001 are considered for regularization. But it not known why the
respondents have fixed the date of regularization from 12.03.2001 when the
petitioner was appointed with effect from 01.10.1988. If 01.10.1988 is considered
as date of appointment, then the petitioner would be entitled to selection grade.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents
are restrained from recovering the said amount. If the respondents had recovered
any installment, then the same shall be repaid to the petitioner. This order shall be
implemented within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order.
10. With these terms, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 10.03.2023
Internet : Yes
ksa
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
3. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Madurai Region, Madurai – 625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
S.SRIMATHY, J
ksa
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.23865 of 2016
10.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
