Madras High Court
A.Karunakaran vs The Joint Registrar Of Cooperative ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
AND WMP NO.21950 OF 2024
A.Karunakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Thiruvannamalai Circle,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Administrator
H.H.615, Polur Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society
Diversion Road, Near Renugambal School,
Polur – 606 803. Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his
Revision Petition No.05/2022 Sa.Pa. (Na.Ka.No.3267/2022/Sa.Pa) dated
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
27.06.2024 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravikumar
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari,
seeking records relating to the order passed by the first respondent, Joint
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region,
Thiruvannamalai in Revision Petition No.05/2022 Sa.Pa.(Na.Ka.No.
3267/2022/Sa.Pa) dated 27.06.2024 and quash the same.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has
been stated that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds
as an Office Assistant in the third respondent, Polur Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society, Thiruvannamalai District, on 01.08.2013. He
was appointed on compassionate grounds following the unfortunate death
of his father, who was working as a Night Watchman, at the age of 52
while in service. It has been stated that the petitioner’s salary has not been
fixed, although other employees of the third respondent society have had
their salaries determined and fixed, even through settlements with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
Management. The petitioner submitted a representation on 07.04.2022,
requesting a revision of his pay scale in accordance with the Registrar’s
Circular dated 08.11.2018, seeking retrospective effect from 01.04.2018.
3.The petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Section 153
of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'). However, the petition was rejected on the ground that no
specific order had been challenged. The petitioner was directed to file a
petition under Section 90 of the said Act, by order dated 26.04.2022.
4.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.17962 of 2023, seeking the interference of this Court with the
order dated 26.04.2022. Another order was passed by the respondents
under Section 153 of the Act, rejecting the revision petition, by order
dated 27.06.2024. It is under these circumstances that the present writ
petition has been filed.
5.There are two issues raised in the writ petition. The first
issue pertains to the regularization of the petitioner’s appointment, which
was made on compassionate grounds following the death of his father
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
while in service. The second issue is the recognition of his employment
and the payment of the requisite time scale of pay to the petitioner.
6.In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the petitioner
was appointed as Office Assistant by the Board of Management of the
third respondent without obtaining departmental permission. It is further
contended that the petitioner could not be considered for regular service,
as the initial appointment was not made with proper approval from the
Department. With respect to the scale of pay, the respondents have
contended that the petitioner’s father had not been brought into regular
service and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek such relief.
7.With respect to the first contention, it must be stated that
the petitioner was appointed by the Board of Management, which
established a contract between the petitioner and the Board. If the Board
of Management did not subsequently inform the Department of this fact,
the petitioner cannot be held at fault. It is also important to note that the
petitioner’s father was working as a Night Watchman under the third
respondent, and it is a further fact that he died while in service with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of
being considered for employment on compassionate grounds, provided he
was otherwise eligible.
8.The second argument put forth by the respondents is that
the petitioner’s father was not brought into regular service. However, the
learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s father
should be deemed to have been brought into regular service in view of his
long service in the society.
9.In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner also
placed reliance on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
K.Anbarasan Vs. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Thiruvannamalai Region and Others [W.P.No.4571 of 2023 decided on
08.06.2023] wherein the learned Single Judge also examined the
appointment on compassionate grounds of the son of an employee who
had not been brought into regular employment. The reasoning of the
learned Single Judge is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
“5.The petitioner's father was initially engaged on
daily wages basis on 10.09.1982. When he was promoted as a
Salesman in the Public Distribution System on 05.04.1988, he
was sanctioned with the regular time scale of pay. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner's appointment was on the
sanctioned vacancy and that he was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange.
6.When similarly placed Salesmen or Packers in the
Co~operative Societies, Marketing Societies and
Co~operative Wholesale Stores were appointed on daily
wages basis and thereafter brought in regular time scale of
pay, approached this Court in the case of A.Sivakumar Vs.
The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-op. & Consumer
Protection Department, Chennai & Others reported in CDJ
2021 MHC 425, seeking for regularisation of their services,
this Court by its order dated 19.02.2021, directed the official
respondents to regularise their services and further rendered
a finding stating that the benefit of regularisation, will also be
extended to such employee, who had not approached the
Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“37.In view of the above discussion, all
the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the
following directions:
a. All those Petitioners/Respondent
Employee, as the case may be who have at the
time of their appointment, fulfilled their
educational qualification, who have been
appointed in a sanctioned post within the cadre
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
strength, and are in regular scale of pay, are
declared to have satisfied the substantial /
mandatory qualification prescribed under Rule
149(1) of the Rules;
b.The appointments not being sponsored
by the employment exchange, as prescribed under
Rule 149(2) of the Rules, will only make the
appointments irregular and not illegal;
c.All those Petitioners/Respondent
Employee, as the case may be who have fulfilled
the criteria stipulated in Clause (a), shall be
regularised by the Respondents by issuing
appropriate proceedings within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
Order by taking the cut-off date as 12.03.2001;
d.The regularization of service of the
Petitioners/Respondent Employee, as the case
may be will not entail them with any additional
monetary benefits except the consequential
benefits which flows from such regularization;
and
e.The benefit of regularization that is
extended to the eligible Petitioners/Respondent
Employee, as the case may be shall also be
extended to all those employees who are similarly
placed even though they have not knocked the
doors of this Court.
Accordingly, the batch of writ petitions are
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.?
7.The aforesaid judgment was delivered on
19.02.2021, when the petitioner's father was alive and in
service. He had later died on 24.09.2021. In view of the
decision of this Court cited supra, the service of the
petitioner's father would also be required to be 'regularised',
since the benefit of regularisation was extended to such
employees, who have not approached the Court also.
8.This apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
ratified this position in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others reported in
2015 (1) SCC 347 by holding that, when a relief is granted by
a Court to a particular set of employees, the same should be
made applicable to the identically situated persons also. The
relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
”22.1 The normal rule is that when a
particular set of employees is given relief by the
court, all other identically situated persons need
to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not
doing so would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. This principle needs to be applied in
service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated persons
should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal
rule would be that merely because other similarly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
situated persons did not approach the Court
earlier, they are not to be treated differently.”
Thus, when this Court had passed the order in A.Sivakumar's
case (supra) on 19.02.2021, when the petitioner's father was
very much in service, the respondent ought to have
regularised his services. Having failed to pass such orders of
regularisation till 24.09.2021, on which date the employee
had died, in failure on their part in this regard, cannot be put
against the employee. In other words, it requires to be
construed that there was a 'deemed regularisation' granted to
the petitioner's father in view of the failure on the part of the
respondents to comply with the earlier orders of this Court in
A. Sivakumar's case (supra) within a reasonable time.
9.The other objection raised by the respondents is that
the petitioner's father's initial appointment was not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. This aspect was also dealt
with in A.Sivakumar's case (supra), wherein all the
petitioners, who have approached this Court were also not
sponsored from the Employment Exchange. The learned
Single Judge had relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in connection with the right of an irregular
appointee to claim regularisation of services, is legally
permissible. The relevant portion of the order reads as
follows:-
“43.As to what would constitute an
irregular appointment is no longer res integra.
The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
M.L. Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
(L&S) 826] , has examined that question and
explained the principle regarding regularisation
as enunciated in Umadevi (3) case [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753]. The decision in that case
summed up the following three essentials for
regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for
ten years or more, (2) that they have so worked in
a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or
protection of the interim order of any court or
tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the
minimum qualification stipulated for the
appointment. Subject to these three requirements
being satisfied, even if the appointment process
did not involve open competitive selection, the
appointment would be treated irregular and not
illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation.
Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be
extracted at this stage: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010)
9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] , SCC p.
250).”
10.The learned Judge had also placed reliance on the
decision of the following portion of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2018 (13) SCC 432:-
“20.It is clear from the above judgements
that paragraph 53 of the judgement in Umadevi's
case (cited supra) has given rise to a glimmer of
hope for all those employees whose appointments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
are irregular but who have voluntarily and
continuously worked for ten years or more in a
duly sanctioned post with prescribed minimum
qualifications. In no uncertain terms, the Hon?ble
Supreme Court has held that those category of
employees who fulfil this criteria as on
10.04.2006 will be entitled to be considered for
regularization.”
11.Thus, in view of the above findings and discussions,
the petitioner's father is deemed to have been 'regularised' in
service under the orders of this Court and since an irregular
appointee, who has put in more than 10 years of service is
also entitled for the benefit of regularisation of his services,
the reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order passed in
Na.K.225/2022/Tho.Ve.Ko.Ka.Sa dated 21.01.2023, is
quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the
respondents herein to pass appropriate orders on the
petitioner's application dated 09.12.2022, granting
appointment on compassionate ground, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.”
10.The ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge is
directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
petitioner’s father should also be deemed to have been regularized in
service, given the long period of service he rendered, in light of the
judgment in A.Sivakumar's case (cited supra). This judgment directly
applies to the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner should be
placed under the regular time scale of pay.
11.With respect to his initial appointment, as pointed out
earlier, the Board of Management had lawfully appointed the petitioner
on credible grounds, given that his father had died during the course of
employment. The appointment was regular, and the petitioner’s claim of
being appointed on compassionate grounds has been addressed in its
proper perspective. Therefore, I do not give much credence to the
statement made by the respondents that, since the Board of Management
did not obtain permission from the Department, the petitioner’s
appointment should be interfered with by this Court.
12.In view of all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed
to grant the time scale of pay to the petitioner in accordance with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
other employees of the third respondent Society. Necessary orders in this
regard must be passed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
TK
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Thiruvannamalai Circle,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Administrator
H.H.615, Polur Primary Agricultural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
Cooperative Credit Society
Diversion Road, Near Renugambal School,
Polur – 606 803. Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
TK
W.P.NO.20055 OF 2024
06.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 03:47:58 pm )
