Madras High Court
P.Natarajan vs The Secretary To Government on 22 November, 2023
W.P.No.20984 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.No.20984 of 2023 and
W.M.P.No.20359 of 2023
P.Natarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue,
Administration/Principal Secretary,
Ezhilagam Building,
Chepauk, Chennai 5.
3.The Chief Electoral Officer,
Principal Secretary to Government,
Public (Election-V) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
4.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Erode, Erode District 638 011. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20984 of 2023
of the third respondent in respect of the impugned order dated
19.11.2019 in Letter No.16840/Ele.V/2016-14and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner from 2005 with all consequential, monetary and other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran,
Special Govt. Pleader for R1, R2 & R4
Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in respect of the
impugned order dated 19.11.2019 in Letter No.16840/Ele.V/2016-14 and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioner from 2005 with all consequential, monetary and
other benefits.
2. Heard Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents 1,2 & 4 and Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for
R3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The petitioner has been appointed as a Junior Assistant on
consolidated pay in the year 2005. The petitioner's service was extended
from time to time for several years and he was in continuous employment
until his retirement. Similarly placed persons who have been appointed
as Junior Assistants in other Departments have been regularised in the
Government service. But the service of the petitioner has not been
regularised. Hence the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No.27684 of 2012 for seeking regularisation of his service with
effect from the year 2005 which is from the date of appointment with all
monetary benefits and absorb him in the post of Junior Assistant. The
following direction has been given in the above said Writ Petition:
"14. In view of the Article 41 and 43 of the
Constitution of India, the Government must ensure
issuing proper direction to the concerned authorities in
cases where the persons, like the petitioner whose
services have been utilised for nearly a decade are not
given proper employment with time scale of pay. It is not
only in element but also complying with the principles of
natural justice. In the light of the observation made in
the judgment, I am of the view that the respondents are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directed to pass orders within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
4. The subsequent Writ Appeal filed challenging the above said
order has also been rejected. Since the direction given by the Court was
not complied, a contempt petition came to be filed and subsequently, the
third respondent has passed an order by rejecting the representation of
the petitioner for regularisation. In the impugned order, it is mentioned
that there is no rule or provision to regularise the services of the Junior
Assistants appointed on consolidated pay.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
similarly placed persons who have been appointed on consolidated pay in
the other departments have been regularised and the petitioner alone was
discriminated. The petitioner has been appointed through Employment
Exchange by undergoing a thorough selection process and he cannot be
said to be a person coming through back door entry as observed in
Umadevi's case. The attention of this Court was drawn to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
regularisation so made for similar such employees who have been
engaged during Tsunami Disaster from 01.03.2005 to 31.05.2009 in
G.O.Ms.No.332 dated 16.07.2010.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though
those employees have served only for four years, the Government had
regularised their services by virtue of the above said Government Order.
But in the case of the petitioner, though he served for more than a
decade, his service was not regularised. In fact, the third respondent has
recommended his regularisation taking into account of his long service.
Despite the same, his regularisation was not granted for the only reason
that there is no rule governing regularisation of appointments made on
consolidated pay.
7. When the Government is passing such Government Orders for
similarly placed persons in other Departments and regularising their
services every now and then without bothering about any rule in place,
but on consideration of the long services and also the circumstances in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which their appointments have been made, the impugned order ought not
to have been passed by citing a lame reason that there is no rule in place.
The third respondent has recommended for regularisation taking into
consideration of various aspects including the petitioner's employment
process in Employment Exchange and the service rendered by him for
more than a decade.
8. The Government was considerate to regularise the services of
similar such persons who have been appointed during Tsunami and who
had worked only for four years. The same yardstick could have been
adopted in the case of the petitioner also and an order could have been
passed for regularising his service without making much fuss about the
technicalities. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 19.11.2019 in Letter No.16840/Ele.V/2016-14 passed by the
third respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider
the regularisation of service of the petitioner by taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consideration of the similar such persons whose services have already
been regularised on various occasions. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
22.11.2023
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes/No
gsk
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue,
Administration/Principal Secretary,
Ezhilagam Building,
Chepauk, Chennai 5.
3.The Chief Electoral Officer,
Principal Secretary to Government,
Public (Election-V) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
4.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Erode, Erode District 638 011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
W.P.No.20984 of 2023 and
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
