Madras High Court
D.Natrasan vs The Principal Secretary on 28 November, 2023
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
W.P.No.24436 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.24436 of 2022
D.Natrasan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Principal Secretary
Rural Development
Panchayat Raja Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Collector
Collectorate
Thiruvannamalai District – 606 601
3. The Commissioner
Polur Panchayat
Polur-606 803 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.7886/2022/PaE3 dated 20.06.2022 along with the relevant portion
of the G.O.Ms.No.55 issued by the 1 st respondent dated 15.06.2006
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24436 of 2022
pertaining to the monetary benefits and quash the same and direct the 1st and
2nd respondents to give all the monetary benefits from the date of
regularisation (08.04.1996) within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Lakshmanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.M.Bindran
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2
Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik for R3
ORDER
The petitioner herein had originally joined the services of the
respondent Department on 08.04.1986. On completion of ten years, his
services were regularized with effect from 07.04.1996. Subsequently on
28.02.2019, the petitioner had retired from service on reaching the age of
superannuation. When the respondents had denied the monetary benefits, by
calculating the petitioner's regularisation of service from the date of original
appointment, he had sent a representation to the respondents seeking for
monetary benefits from the date of his regularisation. The petitioner's
representation came to be rejected through the impugned order stating that
the reference made by the petitioner to identical person will not apply to him
and it will apply only to the concerned individual. Challenging the said order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a similarly
placed employees who services were regularized after completion of 10 years
and monetary benefits were also extended from the date of their initial
appointment and submitted that the order of rejection cannot be sustained.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance
on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that judgments cited
by the petitioner is not a judgment in rem. According to learned Additional
Advocate General, the employee M.Ravi, with whom the petitioner has
compared himself was appointed prior to 01.04.1981 and the petitioner had
joined the services only in 1986 and therefore, comes under different
Government Order. With such a submission, he sought for dismissal of the
writ petition.
4. It is not in dispute that identically placed employees of the
respondent Department, were extended with the service and monetary
benefits from the date of their initial appointment itself and one such order,
has been produced by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of M.Ravi
in Na.Ka.Pava6/462/2012 dated 08.08.2013. The only reason assigned in the
rejection order is that case of M.Ravi will not apply to the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The submission of learned Additional Advocate General in this regard cannot
be sustained for two reasons. Firstly in the impugned order, the respondents
have stated that the case of the similarly placed employees will not be
applicable to the petitioner herein. This Court in various decisions had
consistently held that there cannot be discrimination to two identically placed
employees when it comes to extending of service and monetary benefits. It is
a clear case of discrimination when the respondents have extended the
benefits to the similarly placed employees but denied the same to the
petitioner. On the ground of discrimination, the objection raised by the
learned Additional Advocate General cannot be sustained.
5. Secondly, the reason now assigned in the counter affidavit is that
M.Ravi joined the service prior to the petitioner and comes under different
Government Order. This is not the reason assigned by them in the impugned
order. It is a settled preposition that reasons assigned in the impugned order
cannot be improved or modified through fresh averments made in the counter
affidavit and is impermissible in law. On this ground also, the respondents
cannot improve their case by letting in new evidence and thus, this ground
also fails.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had initially joined the services
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the respondent on 08.04.1986. The order of regularisation has also been
produced before this Court. Hence, the petitioner's date of regularisation
stands substantiated as 08.04.1996.
7. In the result, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for
monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment cannot be sustained
and therefore, impugned orders dated 15.06.2006 and 20.06.2022 passed by
the first and second respondents are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a
direction to the first and second respondents to pass appropriate orders
granting all the monetary benefits, including revision of the pensionery
benefits to the petitioner from date of his regularisation i.e., from 08.04.1996
within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs.
28.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH,J.
gpa
To
1. The Principal Secretary
Rural Development
Panchayat Raja Department
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009
2. The District Collector
Collectorate
Thiruvannamalai District – 606 601
3. The Commissioner
Polur Panchayat
Polur-606 803
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
