Madras High Court
C.Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.20355 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.20355 of 2019
C.Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Engineer in Chief (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction and Maintenance,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction and Maintenance,
Trichy,
Trichy District-620 001.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction and Maintenance,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District-613 001. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.20355 of 2019
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to
regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from his date of
appointment and to grant all monetary benefits in service within the time
frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy
For R1 to R5 : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman,
Government Advocate.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from his
date of appointment and to grant all monetary benefits in service within a
time frame.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as nominal
muster roll (NMR) Grade-I on daily wages on 01.01.1998 by the fifth
respondent. He had passed 12th Std. and Diploma in Civil Engineering.
He should be regularized after 10 years of service and also be promoted
to next higher post of Work Inspector in the same department. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
Government of Tamil Nadu received service details of 976 daily wages
workers from the Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department in all
over Tamil Nadu region. The Government of Tamil Nadu to regularize
encardred 985 post for that daily wages workers in the Public Works
Department in Water Division. The State Government relaxed the Rule
10(A) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and Tamil
Nadu Engineering Subordinate Rule 3(1) to all the daily wages workers.
He sent a detailed representation dated 03.04.2019 to the respondents to
consider regularization of service, based on the Government Orders.
However, no action was taken by the respondents till date. Hence, this
writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner was appointed as NMR-Grade-I on daily wages on
01.01.1998 and he had completed more than 10 years of service and
service has to be regularized. To strengthen his contention, he has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12389 of 2014 dated
15.06.2016 to show that the service of the daily wages employees was
directed to regularize based on the Government Orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would submit that the Government has issued an order in
G.O.Ms.No.134, wherein the Government has considered those, who
entered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006, whereas, the petitioner was
appointed only in the year 1998, as such, he was not completed 10 years
of service and thereby, the petitioner has no locus-standi to seek
regularization of his service.
5.This Court has considered the submission made on either side
and perused the available records.
6.According to the petitioner, he has joined as NMR in the office
of the fifth respondent and still he is working as NMR alone. It is
pertinent to mention that the irregular, illegal and backdoor appointments
would not provide any right to secure permanent absorption or
regularization in view of the legal principles settled by the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2006) 4 SCC 1, State
of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Dayalal and others, reported
in (2011) 2 SCC 429, the judgment delivered after Uma Devi's case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
(cited supra) summarises the principles regarding permanent absorption
and regularisation as under:
“12. We may at the outset refer to the following
well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity
in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under
Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for
regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance,
unless the employees claiming regularisation had been
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in
accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality
clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be
scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a
direction for regularisation of services of an employee
which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance
with one of the elements in the process of selection which
does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised,
back door entries, appointments contrary to the
constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible
candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or
ad hoc or dailywage employee, under cover of some
interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any
right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
“litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-
wage service for a long number of years, let alone service
for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to
claim regularisation, if he is not working against a
sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be
grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the
absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for
regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified number
of years of service and continuing in employment as on the
cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were
appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or
contend that the scheme should be applied to them by
extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing
of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek
regularisation as they are not working against any
sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for
absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of
part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-
run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular
employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay
for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment,
even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with
government employees. The right to claim a particular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
salary against the State must arise under a contract or
under a statute.”
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational
Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] ,
S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279 :
(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897], Kurukshetra Central Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [(2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1
SCC (L&S) 742] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
[(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .]
7.The government order in G.O.Ms.No.134, Public Works (C2)
Department dated 07.05.2010 in paragraph No.6 wherein it is stated that
the minimum NMR engagement days for a year is above 60 days and
below 90 days is to be needed to regularize the NMR service, however
he should have completed 10 years of NMR service before 01.01.2006
as per G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR (P) Department dated 28.02.2006. But
the petitioner completed his 10 years of NMR service only in the year
2012 and he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria for regularisation in the
above said Government Orders.
8.Keeping in mind the above principles, in the instant case, the
petitioner has completed only eight years, since he has been appointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
only in the year 1998 and the principles set out by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the State has to follow the recruitment Rules in force for the
purpose of granting regularization and permanent absorption. There
cannot be conferred any back door entry or from the length of service
will not confer any right of candidate to give regularization or permanent
absorption. There is no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
9.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
NCC : Yes / No 01.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Engineer in Chief (General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction and Maintenance,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction and Maintenance,
Trichy,
Trichy District-620 001.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction and Maintenance,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District-613 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
