Madras High Court
K.Alagarsamy vs The District Collector on 21 February, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD) No.352 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD) No.352 of 2025
K.Alagarsamy ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The District Collector
District Collectorate
Virudhunagar District
2.The Block Development Officer
Thiruchuli Panchayat Union
@ M.Reddiyapatti
Aruppukottai Taluk
Virudhunagar District
3.The Principal Accountant General
O/o.Accountant General
Teynampet
Chennai-600 018 ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 16.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.18160 of 2019, on the file of
this Court.
_______________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.352 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh
Government Advocate for R1 & R2
Ms.S.Mahalakshmi for R3
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
The appellant herein entered in the services of the respondent –
Panchayat Board as Part-Time Clerk on 01.10.1967 and continued to be a
part-time employee. He was given promotion as RWO Grade-II with effect from
08.12.1993. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2008.
2. Meanwhile, in view of the subsequent Government Order to
regularize the services of the part-time employees by taking into account 50%
of their part-time services, a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.7217 of 2015
etc., batch were filed before this Court and the appellant herein is also one
among them. While disposing of the batch of writ petitions, by order dated
02.08.2017, the learned Single Judge directed the Government to regularize
the services of the writ petitioners, who served as part-time employees or on
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
temporary basis and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 11 of
the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and communicate the same to the writ
petitioners.
3. In the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, his grievance
was not only to regularize his services by taking into account 50% of his part-
time service, but also to regularize the period of suspension, which he suffered
due to the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
4. By taking advantage of the disposal of the batch of writ
petitions on the issue of regularization of service by taking into account 50%
of the part-time / temporary services, the appellant herein had requested the
District Collector, Virudhunagar District, to regularize his suspension period
also and pass appropriate orders.
5. The said request of the appellant was rejected by the District
Collector vide order dated 27.06.2018. The said order came to be challenged
by the appellant herein before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD)
No.18160 of 2019.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on considering the facts
of the case and the relief sought for therein, by order dated 16.06.2023,
dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
“2. The petitioner was suspended on
24.07.2000 and was reinstated on 06.05.2001. The
respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner and the same had ended in
imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for 3
years with cumulative effect. On appeal, the
respondents have modified the punishment, wherein,
the stoppage of increment for 3 years was confirmed
but without cumulative effect. Aggrieved over, the
petitioner again preferred an appeal and the same
was confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner attained
superannuation on 30.04.2008. After lapse of 10
years, the petitioner made representation dated
07.05.2018, whereby the respondents after
considering the same, has passed the impugned
order. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition
is filed.
3. It is seen from the records that the
petitioner has filed this Writ Petition after lapse of 10
years. The petitioner cannot endlessly litigate after
retirement and also the petitioner has not explained
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the delay. Due to delay and latches, this Writ Petition
cannot be entertained.”
7. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present writ
appeal is filed stating that the order of the learned Single Judge in the batch of
writ petitions was challenged by the State by filing W.A.No.896 of 2019, but
the same came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
Judgment dated 06.07.2023. Therefore, the State cannot deprive the
appellant herein to take into consideration the period of suspension, which he
suffered due to the pendency of departmental disciplinary proceedings, as he
was deemed to be in service, while fixing the pensionary benefits.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition
in W.P.No.7217 of 2015 filed by the appellant includes the prayer to regularize
the period of suspension apart from to take into account 50% of the service
rendered by him in the post of part-time Clerk along with regular service.
Since the said writ petition was allowed with certain directions, the State
cannot deny the benefit of regularizing the suspended period as service period.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2 drew the of this Court to the order passed by the District
Collector, Virudhunagar District, on 27.06.2018, which was impugned in the
writ petition. He further submitted that neither in the common order passed
by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions nor in the Judgment
passed in the writ appeal filed challenging the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions, there is reference about the
suspension period of the appellant or there is a direction to regularize the
suspension period for calculating the pensionary benefits. Hence, the District
Collector, in his order, which was impugned in the writ petition has
specifically stated that the period of suspension between 24.07.2000 to
06.05.2001 cannot be regularized as the eligible period of service. He further
submitted that admittedly, in the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.7217 of 2015,
which was disposed of along with other writ petitions on 02.08.2017, there is
no relief granted by the learned Single Judge in respect of regularizing the the
period of suspension, which he suffered.
10. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has taken
note of the fact that the appellant was placed under suspension on
24.07.2000 and the suspension was revoked on 06.05.2001 and the appellant
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with
cumulative effect and on his appeal, it was modified as stoppage of increment
for one year without cumulative effect. Whileso, the relief sought to regularize
the suspension period as service period, which was earlier sought but not
addressed in the earlier round of litigation, was taken into consideration by
the learned Single Judge, however, it was rejected on the ground that there is
a lapse of more than ten years on the part of the appellant in approaching the
authority concerned.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant retired from service in the year 2008 and he had been agitating for
regularization of his suspension period as service period since 2015 and his
prayer in W.P.No.7217 of 2015 apart from to take into account 50% of his
part-time service, was to regularize his suspension period and therefore, he
would submit that the principle of delay and latches will not apply in this
case, more so, when the relief sought for by the appellant is with regard to
refixing pensionary benefits, which is a continuous cause of action.
12. This Court, after giving its anxious consideration to the facts
canvassed before us and also the law governing the services of the part-time /
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
temporary employees, whose services regularized subsequently pursuant to
the Government Orders, finds that the appellant herein is entitled for
regularization of service pursuant to the Government Orders by taking into
account 50% of his part-time service, however, the period of suspension due to
the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken into account as
a service period, unless and until, the Disciplinary Authority thought fit to
regularize the suspended period as service period and passes a specific order
to that effect.
13. The appellant, who suffered a punishment of stoppage of
increment for three years with cumulative effect, had agitated the cause by
preferring an appeal and further appeal and partly succeeded in getting the
punishment order modified to stoppage of increment for one year, but without
cumulative effect. Being not satisfied with the modified order, the appellant
filed O.A.No.1595 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
which was transferred to the High Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.9500 of
2007, wherein this Court by order dated 12.11.2014, dismissed the said writ
petition finding that the Appellate Authority took a lenient view in this matter
and reduced the punishment and also the punishment would have no effect
on the pensionary benefits of the appellant.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The record reveals that in the departmental disciplinary
proceedings initiated under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, a punishment of stoppage of increment for three
years with cumulative effect was imposed by the first respondent vide order
dated 29.06.2001 along with recovery of a sum of Rs.1,923/-. The said
punishment was modified by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
25.06.2002 as stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.
Further writ petition before this Court was dismissed on 12.11.2014. In the
interregnum period, the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on
30.04.2008 and had come to this Court seeking to regularize his suspension
period as service period for pensionary benefits in the year 2015.
15. In fact, the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings by the
Disciplinary Authority, dated 20.07.2000, leading to revocation of suspension
being accepted by the appellant and he not claimed the benefit of
regularization of the suspension period as service period for more than fifteen
years. Hence, cannot now be re-looked when the suspension order was
justified by the later punishment order, which has been confirmed by this
Court. If at all the appellant has any grievance, it can only be with regard to
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any omission in considering his past part-time services, which he has
rendered and he cannot have any claim for the period, which he had not
served, in other words, the period of suspension.
16. With the above clarification, this writ appeal is disposed of.
No costs.
[G.J., J.] [R.P., J.]
21.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Thiruchuli Panchayat Union,
@ M.Reddiyapatti,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
krk
21.02.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
