Madras High Court
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs /7 on 5 March, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.A(MD)No.1392 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD).No.1392 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.10037 of 2017
1.Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai -9.
2.The Commissioner/Director of Survey
and Settlement,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
3.The Additional Director of Survey
and Land Records,
Madurai – 20,
Madurai District.
... Appellants
Vs.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1392 of 2017
M.Mainoortheen ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order of this Court, dated 09.11.2016 in W.P.(MD).No.19185 of 2016.
For appellants : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : M/s.Salini Priyanga for
Mr.P.Andiraj
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.)
The State has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned single
Judge passed in W.P.(MD).No.19185 of 2016, dated 09.11.2016, wherein the writ
petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents 2 and 4 to regularise the
service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, as per G.O.
(Ms.)No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department,
dated 22.09.1984 and to give notional promotion to the petitioner and to pay the
monetary benefits retrospectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he was appointed as Field
Surveyor in the office of the Inspector of Survey, UDR Scheme, Unit II, Dindigul.
From 1984 to 1996, he served in the respondent Department under consolidated
pay. Thereafter, the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 12.06.1996,
considering the seniority of the petitioner, appointed him as a Field Surveyor with
the time scale of pay under Rule 10 (a) (1) of the General Rules for the Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and posted to work in the office of the
Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. Later on, he was promoted as a
Land Record Draftsman in the year 2012 and promoted as a Senior Draftsman in
the year 2013 and retired from service in the year 2015. The petitioner’s service
ought to have been regularised from the date of his initial appointment. But his
service was regularised only from the year 1996. Despite the availability of G.O.
(Ms.)No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department,
dated 22.09.1984, the respondents acted in violation of the Government Order
and regularised the service of the petitioner from 1996 only. Hence, he filed the
writ petition seeking regularisation of service from the date of his initial
appointment, as per G.O.(Ms.)No.996, dated 22.09.1984. The learned single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judge of this Court ordered the writ petition, directing the respondents to
regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as
per G.O.(Ms.)No.996, dated 22.09.1984 and to give notional promotion to the
petitioner and to pay the consequential monetary benefits. Challenging the same,
this writ appeal has been filed by the State Government.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants
would submit that the G.O.(Ms.)No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Placements) Department, dated 22.09.1984, is issued to regularise the service of
the persons, who were recruited through employment exchange under General
Rule 10 (a) (i) (1) in time scale of pay posts of Junior Assistants, Typists and
Steno Typists with effect from 25.06.1984 and not for the persons, who were
appointed on consolidated pay posts. He would further submit that the
respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Surveyor cum Draftsman on
04.09.1984, on consolidated pay and was absorbed in the time scale of pay to the
post of Draftsman on 13.06.1996 and his service in the category of Draftsman
was was regularised from 13.06.1996. The respondent/writ petitioner has
rendered his entire service in the category (Technical wing) under the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service and not in the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial Service. Hence, the said G.O., is not applicable to the respondent/writ
petitioner.
4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
5. On perusal of the G.O.(Ms.)No.996 dated 22.09.1984, it is seen that the
services of all the temporary personnel in the category of Junior Assistant, Typist
and Steno Typist in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/Tamil Nadu Judicial
Ministerial Service and Typist and Steno Typist in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat
Service recruited through employment exchange under General Rule 10(a)(1) and
who were in temporary services as on 25.06.1984 be regularised with effect from
25.06.1984 in the same category and in the Department in which they were
working. But the respondent/writ petitioner was working as a Draftsman
(Technical Wing) under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate
Service. Hence, the G.O.(Ms.)No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Placements) Department, dated 22.09.1984 is not applicable to the respondent
herein and the writ appeal has to be allowed.
6. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[V.B.S.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]
05.03.2024
akv
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai -9.
2.The Commissioner/Director of Survey
and Settlement,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
3.The Additional Director of Survey
and Land Records,
Madurai – 20,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
akv
05.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
