Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government Of ... vs S.Vaiyapuri on 23 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.A(MD) No.1110 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.(MD) No.1110 of 2018
and CMP (MD) No.7975 of 2018
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Rural Development and Local Administration
Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector, Theni.
3.The Commissioner,
Theni Panchayat Union,
Theni. ... Appellants/
Respondents
-vs-
S.Vaiyapuri ... Respondent/writ petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order passed in W.P. (MD) No.8113 of 2009 dated 06.06.2017.
For Appellants : M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.B.Jeyakumar
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
W.A(MD) No.1110 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The Writ Appeal had been filed by the respondents in W.P.
(MD) No.8113 of 2009 aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2017 of the
learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner, S.Vaiyapurai, had filed the writ
petition in the year 2009 in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus to
call for records and to quash an order of the third respondent, the
Commissioner, Theni Panchayat Union, Theni, dated 12.01.2009 in
reference in Na.Na.No.3577 of 2008 and regularise the services of the
wife of the writ petitioner, Mrs.Jothiammal, who was working as
Gangmazoor (salaipaniyalar) under the third respondent, the
Commissioner, Theni Panchayat Union, Theni and to grant retirement-
cum-death benefit which had accrued to her.
3. When the writ petition had come up for consideration
before the learned Single Judge, it had been observed that the only
question which had come up for consideration in the writ petition was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whether the services could be regularised.
4. The learned Single Judge had observed that the wife of
the writ petitioner had joined duty on 29.06.1971 and had passed away
on 06.03.1980. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the
G.O.Ms.No.664, RD & LA Department, dated 21.08.1986 wherein, it had
been stated that if there is a break in service, the service of the
Government servant can be regularised. It had been further observed that
the wife of the writ petitioner had completed 8 years 8 months and 5 days
of service and it had observed that even if there is any break in service,
the service can be regularised. Questioning this particular order of the
learned Single Judge, the writ appeal had been filed by the respondents.
5. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the
appellants pointed out that the wife of the writ petitioner Jothiammal had
died on 06.03.1980 and after a period of 29 years, the writ petition had
been filed. It was also contended that the writ petitioner had actually
married for a second time, Parameswari and also had a son. The writ
petitioner had also died on 15.03.2022.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Now, the legal heirs cannot seek any relief so far as
Jothiammal is concerned since, there is no direct legal heir for her
seeking any benefit out of regularisation even if granted. The only
available legal heirs for the writ petitioner/first respondent herein are
second wife/Parameswari and his son born through the second wife
Sudhakaran, who is also married. His mother however is available
Suruliammal but, so far as Jothiammal is concerned, Suruliammal is her
mother-in-law and not a direct Clause-1 heir.
7. In view of the fact that the wife of the writ petitioner had
worked only for a period of 8 years 8 months and 8 days which
disqualifies of her service being regularised since a minimum of ten years
will have to be put in, we are of the view that reliance placed on
G.O.Ms.No.664, RD & LA Department, dated 21.08.1986 would not
come to the rescue of the writ petitioner/first respondent and accordingly,
we are constrained to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on
all the above grounds.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. A representation was made on behalf of the deceased first
respondent, who is represented by a learned Counsel who expressed
difficulty in bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased first
respondent.
9. The writ appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
[C.V.K., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
23.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
PKN
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Rural Development and Local Administration
Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector, Theni.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Commissioner,
Theni Panchayat Union,
Theni.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
PKN
23.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
