Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Mrs.S.B.Iruthaya Mary Stella on 18 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos. 333 and 334 of 2025
and CMP Nos.2675, 2679 and 2680 of 2025
WA No.333 of 2025
1. The Secretary
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Director of Town Panchayats
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 028.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Kancheepuram Zone.
4. The Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram. ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Mrs.S.B.Iruthaya Mary Stella
2. The Executive Officer,
Uthiramerur Town Panchayat,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in WP No.10489 of 2022.
WA No.334 of 2025
1. The Secretary
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Director of Town Panchayats
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 028.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Tiruvallur Zone.
4. The Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur. ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Mr.V. Kamaraj
2. The Executive Officer,
Uthukottai Town Panchayat,
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in WP No.10491 of 2022.
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
(in both the petitions) Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Additional Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan,
Special Government Pleader, for R2
****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The challenge in these Writ Appeals is to the order of the Writ Court
made in WP Nos.10489 and 10491 of 2022.
2. The petitioners, who were appointed as last grade servants in the
Town Panchayats as a daily rated employees were drawn as Office
Assistants on a regular basis pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.05.1999.
Taking into account their plight, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.76 on
31.05.2019, providing for appointment of these Office Assistants, as Junior
Assistant/Bill Collector as and when the vacancies arise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
3. The said Government Order also specifically provided that they
should be deemed to have been appointed as Junior Assistant/Bill Collector
on 02.06.2001 and they will be entitled to monetary benefits only from the
date of actual appointment as Junior Assistant/Bill Collector. The
Government Order also takes care to mention that if there is any person in
the list appended to the G.O. who had either died or retired they should be
identified and after obtaining their consent proper action should be taken.
4. The names of both the petitioners were listed in the Annexure to
the said G.O. in Sl. Nos. 6 and 17. Complaining that they have not been
conferred with the benefits of the G.O., the petitioners moved this Court.
The petitioner in WP No.10489 of 2022 challenged the order of rejection of
her claim dated 04.05.2021 and also sought for a Mandamus to appoint her
as a Junior Assistant/Bill Collector with notional pay fixation from
02.06.2002 and to revise and re-fix her pension and other terminal benefits.
The petitioner in WP No.10491 of 2022 sought for a simple Mandamus as
there was no order rejecting his request.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
5. The Writ Court on a reading of G.O.Ms.125 dated 27.05.1999 and
G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 31.05.2019, concluded that the rejection of the benefit
to the petitioner in WP No.10489 of 2022 is bad and while quashing the said
rejection granted the Mandamus as prayed for. In WP 10491 of 2022, the
Writ Court issued a Mandamus directing the respondents to grant notional
pay fixation in the post of Junior Assistant/Bill Collector with effect from
the date of the initial appointment i.e. 16.08.2002 and directed the
Authorities to revise the pension and other terminal benefits. Aggrieved the
Government is on Appeal.
6. Mr. R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellants would vehemently contend that since the petitioners in
both the Writ Petitions were beyond 55 years which is the maximum age for
appointment as Junior Assistant/Bill Collectors on 31.05.2019, they could
not be accommodated. We do not think that the fact that the petitioners have
completed 58 years of age as on 31.05.2019 could be treated as a bar for
their being conferred with the benefits of G.O.Ms.76 dated 31.05.2019.
G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 31.05.2019 confers a certain benefit on the employees,
who were worked in the Entry Level Posts in Town Panchayat, for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
considerable time i.e. from 02.06.2001 till the date of issuance of G.O. for
almost 18 years.
7. The fact that they had crossed the maximum age limit for
appointment as Junior Assistant/Bill Collector cannot stand in the way since
G.O. itself makes it clear that they would be deemed to have been notionally
appointed in the post of Junior Assistant/Bill Collector even as on
02.06.2001 and only payment of actual monetary benefits was denied to
them. Therefore, the contention that they had attained the age of 58 on the
date of the G.O. would disentitle them for the benefits of the G.O. cannot be
countenanced. The qualifying age, in our considered opinion, must be taken
as on 02.06.2001 and not on any date subsequent. If the qualifying age is
taken as on 02.06.2001 both the petitioners were less than 58 and therefore,
they were entitled to be considered for appointment.
8. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
Court, the Appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
18.02.2025
jv
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
1. The Secretary
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Director of Town Panchayats
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 028.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Kancheepuram Zone.
4. The Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
5. The Executive Officer,
Uthiramerur Town Panchayat,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
6. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Tiruvallur Zone.
7. The Collector,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur.
8. The Executive Officer,
Uthukottai Town Panchayat,
Tiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.333 & 334 of 2025
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
jv
W.A.Nos. 333 and 334 of 2025
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
