Madras High Court
A.Mahalingam … vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 April, 2025
W.P. No. 10440 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P. No. 10440 of 2019
A.Mahalingam … Petitioner
-vs-
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
3. The Commissioner
Salem City Municipal Corporation
Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give
effect of date of regular appointment of the petitioner in the post of unskilled
worker with effect from 15.05.2001 instead of from 23.02.2006 and to grant
him all consequential service and monetary benefits, including bringing him
under the purview of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1983 and to grant him all
pensionary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh, GA (RR1 & 2)
Ms.Devi.N, Standing Counsel (R3)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
W.P. No. 10440 of 2019
ORDER
Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Rajesh,
learned Government Advocate for the first and second respondents and
Ms.Devi.N, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent and perused the
materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as NMR worker on daily wage
basis in the respondent Corporation during October 1986 and thereafter, he
continuously served without any break in view of the Government Order dated
27.05.1999. He was appointed as unskilled worker on 15.05.2000 on
consolidated monthly pay of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner claims that he ought to
have been brought under the regular time scale of pay on completion of one
year, but the respondent Corporation had appointed him in the regular time
scale of pay only from 23.02.2006. In view of the said appointment, the
petitioner will lose the benefit of coming under the Old Pension Scheme.
Hence, the petitioner has given a representation to the first respondent
Government to consider his grievance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed
persons have already filed writ petitions, writ appeals and review petitions and
they have been taken together and a common order has been passed on
30.05.2017 by a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. Attention was drawn
to the relevant portion of the said judgment, which are extracted hereunder:-
“27. The relevant portion of the G.O.(Ms.)No.74, dated
27.06.2013 i.e., paragraph 6 of the G.O.(Ms.)No.74, Personnel
and Administrative Reforms(F) Department, dated 27.06.2013
was put under challenge before this Court and by number of
judgments, the period restricted for such regularization upto
01.04.2006 has been extended, by setting aside paragraph 6 of
G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 27.06.2013, till the date of issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.74 i.e., dated 27.06.2013. Therefore, these kind of
temporary employees on consolidated pay or daily wage basis,
who had been regularized upto 27.06.2013 have become
eligible to seek for benefits including the pensionary benefits
and number of decisions have been rendered by this Court and
this Bench also have come across some of such cases, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
were allowed in tune with the aforesaid legal proposition.
28. When that being so, as far as these employees are
concerned, who were very well entitled to seek for such
regularization before 01.04.2003 and if, we take the import of
G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 as well as G.O.Ms.No.74,
dated 27.06.2013 cumulatively, the intention of the
Government since has been made explicitly that, those who
have rendered service of more than 10 years can be
regularized provided if they have joined service or initially
engaged as NMRs or temporary employees on consolidated
pay or daily wage basis before 01.04.2003, the date on which
the new pension scheme had come, are all entitled to seek for
such benefit of regularization i.e., before 27.06.2013 and
would be entitled to seek for the benefit of calculating 50%
service they rendered prior to their regularization for the
purpose of calculating the total pensionary benefits. When
such being the legal position, based on which, several
employees' plea having been accepted by this Court, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
benefit had been extended and number of such orders have
been passed including our Division Bench judgment, therefore
those judgments are binding.
29. If we apply the aforesaid principle and various decisions,
which have been rendered in consonance with the aforesaid
legal principle, the view taken by the learned Single Judge
through the impugned order of-course prior to the judgment of
the Full Bench cannot be said to be an erroneous one or
flawed one. Hence, the order impugned is to be sustained in
the considered opinion of us.”
Insofar as the Government Order Nos. 101 and 71 are concerned, they are in
respect of similar persons working in municipalities.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that G.O.Ms. No.125,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.05.1999 is
also pari materia to the Government Orders referred in respect of the similar
persons working in municipal Corporation and as referred in the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court dated 30.05.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
5. On perusal of the records, in the order issued for fixing the grade pay to
the petitioner, it has been stated that after one year, time scale of pay would be
given to the petitioner. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
as assured the time scale of pay has not been given to the petitioner
immediately after one year from 15.05.2000, but he has been brought under the
time scale of pay after six years. So it is claimed by the petitioner that due to
the fault on the part of the respondents in extending him the time scale of pay,
he should not be deprive to get the service benefits. To be noted that
undertaking given for granting the time scale of pay is different from
undertaking given for regularization.
6. It is submitted that even in the cases involving orders passed by the Full
Bench also, similar kind of undertaking was given by the respondents, but they
have not been complied and hence, the order came to the rescue. If such is the
case, then the petitioner's case can also be considered in light of the above
judgments and in accordance with law and on its own merits on the
representation given by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
7. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed. The third
respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, in the
light of the earlier judicial pronouncement, on merits and in accordance with
law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs.
15.04.2025
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Neutral Case Citation : Yes / No
Maya
To
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk, Chennai-600005.
3. The Commissioner
Salem City Municipal Corporation
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya
Dated : 15.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 03:10:10 pm )
