Madras High Court
Unknown vs D.Sulochana Bai on 6 August, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.A.(MD)No.577 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A(MD)No.577 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3241 of 2018
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Chief Engineer,
WRO/PWD and Engineer in Chief,
Chepuak, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Madurai Region, Madurai - 625 002.
4.The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Development Outfit,
Public Works Department,
Kothaiyar Basin Division,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.577 of 2018
5.The Engineer in Chief (Buildings),
Chief Engineer (Buildings),
Chennai Region and Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department, Chennai - 600 005. ... Appellants
vs
D.Sulochana Bai ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order of this Court dated 09.05.2017 passed in W.P(MD)No.3870 of
2015.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Ms.J.Anandha Valli
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.)
This Writ Appeal had been filed questioning an order, dated
09.05.2017, in W.P.(MD)No.3870 of 2015, of a learned Single Judge,
whereby, the claim of the Writ Petitioner to quash an order passed by the
first respondent in the Writ Petition/Principal Secretary, Public Works
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, in Letter No.6126/C2/2014-2,
dated 01.04.2014, and to direct the respondents to grant regularisation to the
Writ Petitioner along with service benefits, was favourably considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The facts of the case are that the Writ Petitioner, D.Sulochana Bai,
was initially appointed as Casual Labour in the year 1999 and continued as
nominal muster roll employee with regular fictional break. It was stated that
she had been rendering continuous service in the office of the Executive
Engineer, Water Resources Development Outfit, Public Works Department,
Kothaiyar Basin Division, Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District from the year
1994. Her service register was opened in the year 2000. She claims that
though she had been in employment from 1994, records reveal that she had
been definitely in employment only from 1999.
3.The Writ Petitioner claimed that she had been in continuous
employment from 1994 onwards. She had stated that the letter dated
01.04.2014 of the first respondent in the Writ Petition, wherein, it had been
stated that only those employees, who had put in ten years of service, as on
01.01.2006, would be regularised would not be applicable to her. It had
been further stated that reliance of the respondents to G.O.(Ms)No.22,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006,
was misguided and therefore, she should be considered as being in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
continuous and regular employment under the fourth respondent in the Writ
Petition.
4.The termination of the Writ Petitioner in the year 2014 was
questioned in the Writ Petition. A learned Single Judge in the order had
found as a fact that the Writ Petitioner had been in employment as a
nominal muster roll only from the year 1999. It was also found as a fact that
as on 01.01.2006, the Writ Petitioner had not put in ten years of service.
But, however, the learned Single Judge had observed that the Writ
Petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition in the year 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.
30251 of 2008 for a Mandamus seeking a direction that the Writ Petitioner
should be considered as being in continuous employment and for
regularisation of service. Orders were passed to consider such
regularisation.
5.While examining the case of the Writ Petitioner, it had been
observed by the learned Single Judge that though such an order had been
passed by this Court, the respondents in the Writ Petition had not
considered the said Writ Petition, but had waited till the Government Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
aforementioned, namely, G.O(Ms)No.22, had been passed and thereafter,
had claimed that the Writ Petitioner had not completed ten years of service
as on 01.01.2006 and had terminated her service. Holding that the said act
of the respondents does not withstand judicial scrutiny, the learned Single
Judge had allowed the Writ Petition and had directed regularisation of the
Writ Petitioner into regular service. This order of the learned Single Judge
is now tested before this Court.
6.It is contended on behalf of the Writ Appellants that the
Government Order is clear; that is straight forward; that it cannot be
interpreted otherwise. The only interpretation that could be given was to
determine whether as on 01.01.2006, an applicant or a worker had
completed ten years of service. The Writ Petitioner had not completed ten
years of service.
7.Admittedly, she had joined service in the year 1999 as a nominal
muster roll and her service register was opened in the year 2000. As on
01.01.2006, therefore, viewed from any angle, either from the year 1999 or
from the year 2000, she had not completed ten years of service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The other contention, which had been raised by the Writ Petitioner
that she had actually been in employment from 1994, had also been
considered by us. But, unfortunately, she had not produced any records to
show that she had been in actual employment from 1994 till 1999. The
earliest records date from 1999 only. The fact that a direction was issued by
a learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.30251 of 2008 to consider her
representation would only imply that a respondents were also given the
discretion to either consider her representation favourably or to take any
other decision, which according to them, would be apt in the circumstances
of the case. It cannot be considered as a direction to regularise the service
of the Writ Petitioner without any discretion on the part of the respondents.
9.Any representation will have to be considered after giving due
opportunity. But, the ultimate decision should rest with the appellants to
either consider it favourably or to reject it. The Court can never give any
direction to consider any representation in a particular manner, particularly,
relating to service of a candidate. In view of this particular reason, since
G.O.(Ms)No.22 supervenes and places a direct embargo on regularisation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an employee, who had not put in ten years of service as on 01.01.2006, we
hold that the directions of the learned Single Judge will have to be
interfered with and the Writ Appeal will have to be necessarily allowed.
10.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[C.V.K., J] & [J.S.N.P., J]
06.08.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
cmr
Judgment made in
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
