Madras High Court
Unknown vs K.Vadivel on 24 June, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.895 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.895 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6649 of 2024
1.The State represented by,
The Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department,
St. George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
O/o.Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
4.The Commissioner,
O/o.Panchayat Union,
Krishnarayapuram,
Karur District.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
W.A(MD)No.895 of 2024
5.The Block Development Officer,
O/o.Krishnarayapuram Panchayat Union,
Krishnarayapuram,
Karur District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
K.Vadivel ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 05.02.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.4397 of 2021 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mrs.D.Farjana Ghousia
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court dated 05.02.2024 in
W.P.(MD)No.4397 of 2021, the respondents as appellants have filed the present
Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
2. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking to
quash the impugned proceedings passed by the first appellant dated 05.03.2018
and consequently to direct the appellants to regularize his services with effect
from the date of his initial appointment, along with all other consequential
monetary and service benefits.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the Writ
Petition are as follows:
3.1. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Watchman on
01.07.1991 through the employment exchange pursuant to a call letter issued by
the fourth appellant. Though it was stated in the appointment order that the writ
petitioner’s appointment was temporary, it was intended to be made permanent, as
the appointment was based on employment seniority. A service register was also
opened and he was paid a regular time scale of pay. Subsequently, he was
transferred and posted as a Night Watchman in the Krishnarayapuram Panchayat
Union Office on 17.07.1992.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
3.2. Since his service was not regularized for a long period, the
fourth appellant, by proceedings dated 17.08.2010, forwarded certain particulars
to the third appellant for the purpose of regularization. As the said proposal was
not acted upon, the writ petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.11146 of 2015 seeking a
direction for regularization of his services. This Court, by order dated 11.02.2016,
directed the third appellant to consider his representation in light of the fourth
appellant's recommendation.
3.3. Pursuant to the same, the fifth appellant, by proceedings dated
04.03.2016, informed the writ petitioner that ratification from the Government
was required to relax the age criteria at the time of appointment. Subsequently,
the third appellant, by proceedings dated 19.03.2016, sent a proposal to the
second appellant to regularize the writ petitioner’s services, incorporating a
request for relaxation of age.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
3.4. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner attained the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2016. Since his service was not regularized, no formal
retirement order was issued and he was orally instructed not to report to duty.
Thereafter, the second appellant, by proceedings dated 25.09.2017, sought
directions and accordingly, the first appellant, by proceedings dated 26.09.2017,
requested further particulars. The third appellant furnished the required
particulars by proceedings dated 28.11.2017.
3.5. Despite this, no action was taken. Hence, the writ petitioner filed
W.P(MD)No.360 of 2018 and this Court, by order dated 26.02.2018, directed the
first appellant to pass final orders on or before 30.04.2018 based on the
communication, dated 28.11.2017. Nevertheless, no action was taken. Ultimately,
the first appellant, by the impugned proceedings dated 05.03.2018, rejected the
writ petitioner’s claim for regularization on the ground that his appointment was
made after the issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.878, Rural Development Department,
dated 15.05.1981 and his name was not included in G.O.(Ms)No.161, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 26.06.2000. Aggrieved by the
said order, the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
4. The Writ Court, after considering the materials on record and upon
elaborate discussion, allowed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the
respondents as appellants have filed the present Writ Appeal.
5. The submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants are as follows:
5.1. The writ petitioner was temporarily appointed through the
employment exchange on 01.07.1991 at Irumboothipatti weekly market.
Subsequently, on 01.07.1992, he was appointed as a Night Watchman in
Krishnarayapuram Panchayat Union under contingent service, on a time scale of
pay. In the year 1993–94 Local Fund Audit, an objection was raised regarding his
time-scale appointment without government approval, and increments were not
granted thereafter. Despite this, the Panchayat Council passed a resolution on
18.09.1997 recommending him for the time-scale post in an unsanctioned
position. G.O.(Ms)No.267, Rural Development Department, dated 22.12.1999
empowered District Collectors to regularize contingent/daily wage employees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
with 10 years of continuous service. G.O.(Ms)No.161, Rural Development
Department, dated 26.06.2000 regularized 171 Night Watchmen, but the writ
petitioner's name was not included. The writ petitioner submitted a representation
on 25.03.2015 seeking regularization. Since the same was not considered, the writ
petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.11146 of 2015 and this Court, by
order dated 11.02.2016, directed the third appellant to consider his representation
in the light of the fourth appellant's recommendation. After his retirement on
30.06.2016, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.360 of 2018 and this Court
directed the second appellant to decide on his case. The first appellant rejected his
claim via order dated 05.03.2018, citing overage (35 years at the time of
appointment) and lack of inclusion in G.O(Ms)No.161, Rural Development
Department, dated 26.06.2000/ Hence, the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition.
The Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition on 05.02.2024, stating that the writ
petitioner had served for 25 years until retirement; his long service, despite being
temporary, deserved recognition in a welfare state and his appointment was made
through a regular recruitment process against a sanctioned post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
5.2. The original appointment was illegal under the Tamil Nadu
Panchayat Establishment Rules, 1988, as the age limit for the Night Watchman
post was 30 years, while the writ petitioner was 35 years at the time of
appointment. In the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and
others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that
appointments must comply with statutory rules, and backdoor entries cannot be
regularized. Later judgments contrary to Umadevi cannot be considered
precedents as para 54 of Umadevi nullifies such contrary decisions. Audit
objections led to the denial of increments, which the writ petitioner never
contested. The writ petitioner's claim in the year 2015, 15 years after
G.O(Ms)No.161, Rural Development Department, dated 26.06.2000 is barred by
laches. A Division Bench judgment in W.A.(MD) Nos. 836 & 837 of 2014
emphasized that Panchayat resolutions alone do not confer legal rights and
appointments must conform to rules. Sympathy and length of service cannot
override legal ineligibility, as held in Secretary to Government, School
Education Department, Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy and others [2014 (4)
SCC 769]. Even if regularization were to be granted under G.O(Ms)No.161,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
Rural Development Department, dated 26.06.2000 it could only be effective from
26.06.2000 and not from the initial date of appointment. The order of the Writ
Court is legally unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate
General relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary to
Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R.Govindaswamy
and others [2014 (4) SCC 769] and the order of this Court in W.P.No.32769 of
2014, dated 26.07.2022 [A.Subramanian Vs. The Secretary to Government and
others].
7. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner are as follows:
7.1. The reasons cited in the impugned proceedings dated 05.03.2018
were never communicated to the writ petitioner earlier and appear to be newly
invented to deny his claim. Even if the writ petitioner’s name was not included in
G.O.(Ms)No.161, Rural Development Department, dated 26.06.2000 that alone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
should not be a ground to reject his claim for regularization after serving for 27
years.
7.2. The writ petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1991 and served for
27 years. The appointment was through employment exchange, and hence, it
cannot be termed illegal or irregular. The impugned proceedings is arbitrary and
vitiated due to the inordinate delay. As similarly placed persons were regularized
under G.O.(Ms)No.161, Rural Development Department, dated 26.06.2000, the
writ petitioner is also entitled to regularization. Denying the same is unreasonable
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having extracted service
from the writ petitioner for 27 years, the appellants cannot deny regularization at
the end of his career.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner
relied on the following judgments:
1. Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 654].
2. Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[(2018) 13 SCC 432].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
3. State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel [2022
LiveLaw (SC) 187].
4. Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 520].
5. Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India [2024 LiveLaw (SC)
330].
6. Shirpal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC Online
SC 221].
In the light of these judgments, which are squarely applicable, the writ petitioner
is entitled to regularization with effect from 01.07.1991. Therefore, the Writ
Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants and Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
10. The factual matrix of the case is not in serious dispute. The writ
petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on 01.07.1991 through the employment
exchange, and was later posted as a Night Watchman in the Krishnarayapuram
Panchayat Union Office. He continued in service for 27 years until his
superannuation on 30.06.2016. His appointment, though termed temporary, was
on a time scale of pay and a service register was also maintained. Despite
multiple recommendations and communications by the authorities, including
proposals for regularization, his service was not regularized.
11. The claim for regularization was ultimately rejected by the first
appellant vide proceedings dated 05.03.2018 on the grounds that the writ
petitioner was overaged at the time of appointment, and his name did not feature
in G.O.(Ms) No.161, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated
26.06.2000.
12. The learned Single Judge, upon elaborate consideration of the
facts and applying the principles laid down in a catena of decisions, including
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 654] and State of Gujarat v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187], allowed the writ petition,
observing that the appointment was not a backdoor entry but made through the
employment exchange; the petitioner had rendered 27 years of continuous service
without interruption; the denial of regularization at the end of such long and
dedicated service was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness and
equity.
13. We find no merit in the contention of the appellants that the
petitioner’s appointment was illegal. Mere irregularity in the process or technical
non-compliance with age norms, particularly when known and tolerated by the
employer throughout the tenure, cannot be a ground to deny regularization after
decades of service. The appointment through the employment exchange and the
maintenance of a service register further support the legitimacy of the
appointment.
14.The reliance placed by the appellants on Secretary, State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is misplaced in the present context. The
Supreme Court itself, in Umadevi's case, carved out an exception for employees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
who had been working for a long period and were not irregular appointees in the
strict sense. Further, subsequent decisions including Vinod Kumar v. Union of
India [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 330] and Shirpal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025
SCC Online SC 221] have recognized the principle of legitimate expectation and
directed regularization in similar cases.
15.The principle laid down in Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P.
[(2018) 13 SCC 432] that length of service cannot be brushed aside solely due to
the absence of formal regularization applies squarely to the present case.
16.The respondent/writ petitioner, having served continuously for 27
years under the control and supervision of the State, cannot now be denied the
benefit of regularization and terminal benefits on hyper-technical grounds. A
welfare state cannot extract continuous service from an employee and thereafter
deny them basic service rights under the garb of procedural infirmities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
17.Accordingly, we find no error in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge warranting interference. The order impugned in this Writ Appeal is
based on sound reasoning, supported by binding precedent and the overarching
principles of equity and fairness.
18. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The order dated
05.02.2024 passed in W.P.(MD) No.4397 of 2021 is confirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[J.N.B.,J.] & [S.S.Y.,J.]
24.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Represented by the State of Tamil Nadu,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department,
St. George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
O/o.Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
4.The Commissioner,
O/o.Panchayat Union,
Krishnarayapuram,
Karur District.
5.The Block Development Officer,
O/o.Krishnarayapuram Panchayat Union,
Krishnarayapuram,
Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
ps
Pre-Delivery Judgment Made in
24.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:38:23 pm )
