Madras High Court
R.Sivamurugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
WP.No.22148 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 27.10.2025
Pronounced on : 04.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP.No.22148 of 2023 and
WMP.No.5370 of 2024
1.R.Sivamurugan
2.V.Dhanuskodi
3.A.Dhanasekara Packia Jeyaraj
4.S.Balamurugan
5.P.Jeganathamoorthy
6.D.David Dhanaraj
7.S.Epanesar Anpan
8.T.John Udaya Suriyan
9.P.Devid
10.S.Keeshing Raja
11.A.Lakshmanan
12.S.Packiaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (WS3) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2.The Managing Director,
TWAD Board,
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
2
Chepauk, Chennai-5
3.The Executive Engineer, (TWAD Board),
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
RWS Division,
No.120, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Building,
Collectorate Campus,
Ramanathapuram
4.The Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District ... Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire
records with regard to the impugned Government Order in G.O.(D)
No.46 dt.10.02.2021 passed by the 1st respondent herein and
consequential order in Proc.No.645 F.WCE.2021/EC/2021 dt 26.02.2021
passed by 3rd respondent and quash and strike down the same and for a
direction directing the 1 to 3 Respondents to regularize the Petitioners as
permanent government servants from the date of their respective date of
joining or from the date of order of the 4th respondent viz. 11.07.2011
with back wages all attendant benefits, promotion etc with continuity of
service from the respective date of joining.
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
WP.No.22148 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.S.Ponnarasi
For Respondents
For R1 & 4 : Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 & 3 : Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Counsel
Mrs.Y.Kavitha,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the first respondent dated 10.02.2021 and the consequential
order passed by the third respondent dated 26.02.2021 thereby denying
the request made by the petitioners to regularize them.
2. The petitioners and others were engaged in consolidated
salary in various categories such as electrical operator, mechanical
operator, chemist, fitter, electrician, helper, watchman etc., for serving in
de-salination plant at Narippaiyur Village, Kadaladi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District to supply drinking water. Even after a lapse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
10 years, they were not observed in regular time scale of pay. Therefore,
they approached the fourth respondent for conferment of permanent
status from the date of completion of two years of their services. The
fourth respondent conducted detailed enquiry and ordered conferment of
permanent status by invoking the provisions of Tamilnadu Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Tamilnadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status of workmen) Act, 1981.
It was challenged by the third respondent before the Madurai Bench of
this Court in WP(MD).No.13038 of 2011 and the same was dismissed.
Thereafter, the writ petition filed by the workmen was allowed and the
order passed by the fourth respondent was ordered to be complied with.
Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred appeal in
WA.(MD).No.1005 of 2014 and the same was also dismissed and the
order of the fourth respondent was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
3. The review petitions were also dismissed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
India. Only after filing contempt petitions, the order passed by the fourth
respondent was implemented and permanent status was provided to the
petitioners by an order dated 10.02.2021. However, it was not complied
with from the date of the order of the fourth respondent which was
further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners were not regularized and their salaries were
not fixed in the regular time scale of pay though they have been given
permanent status. It is completely against the order passed by this Court
as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioners are
entitled to permanent status as Government servants with continuity of
service, backwages, including all attendant benefits and promotions from
the date of the order passed by the fourth respondent. He further
submitted that earlier the present order dated 10.02.2021 was challenged
before the Madurai Bench of this Court in WP.(MD).No.20725 of 2021
and by an order dated 27.01.2025, the conditional portion as mentioned
in the paragraph 8 of the order impugned dated 10.02.2021 was quashed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
and the matter was remanded back to the first respondent for
re-consideration and implementation of the order passed by this Court by
sanctioning routine increments from the date of fixation of regular time
scale of pay within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India rendered in the case of Shripal and Another Vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024, wherein it was held
as follows:
12. The evidence, including documentary material and
undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant Workmen
performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer’s
municipal functions specifically the upkeep of parks,
horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work
is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or project-based.
Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be
used to deny labor protections to long- serving workmen. On
the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the
Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam reinforces the notion that these
positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning,
general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from
regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately
and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively
engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of
“equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this
Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have
served for extended periods in roles resembling those of
permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the
Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these
were mere short-term casual engagements.
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance
on Umadevi's case to contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the
absence of statutory rules providing such absorption.
However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself
distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and
those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions. More
importantly, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Uma Devi cannot serve as a
shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for
years without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no true
contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on
fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite
daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s
inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently,
it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure
of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness:
the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved
yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized
the importance of their work and hinted at eventual
regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service
or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of
statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is
established that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential,
perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to
perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget
and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration,
such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed,
bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights
of workmen who have served continuously in de facto
regular roles for an extended period.
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the
extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-
wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back
wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s
services, effected without compliance with Section 6E
and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating
their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant
Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the
date of their termination, for all purposes, including
seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent
Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their
respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously
performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment.
Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination
until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of
service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and
eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length
of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until
their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall
clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of
their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed
to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of
reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent
posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if
such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the
past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties
exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall
expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure
these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on
daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused all the materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
6. On perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent and
on hearing the submissions of the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the first respondent, it is revealed that the order
passed by the fourth respondent, vide order dated 10.02.2021, has been
duly complied with by conferring permanent status to the contract
employees. They were not appointed through regular means and they are
back door entrants. They have been engaged by the contractor of Tamil
Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. There is no direct working
relationship between the petitioners and the Board. Therefore, the
petitioners were already conferred with the permanent status as a
one-time measure and it was ensured that the workmen were benefited
and at the same time the employer also does not suffer. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot try to take advantage of the order passed by the fourth
respondent which was confirmed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex
Court to claim further benefit since they have not been recruited
following due and transparent process established by the statutory rules
and regulations and they have only been engaged by the contractor. Their
pay has been fixed as per VII pay commission following the schedule III
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
Pay Matrix for regular Government employees. In fact, after the order
dated 10.02.2021, the petitioners agreed to join in the postings as per the
proceedings dated 26.02.2021 without any protest.
7. Further, the special law will prevail over the general law.
The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act Services
Regulations was implemented by virtue of the powers conferred under
Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act.
The provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act would not be
applicable for grant for regularization and permanent absorption with
reference to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board. Therefore, the provisions of the Tamilnadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 is not
applicable to the employees of the TWAD Board for granting the benefit
of regularization and permanent absorption. This Court, while dealing
with the same issue in the case of S.Devamani and others Vs. Executive
Engineer, TWAD Board, Kancheepuram and others dated 22.06.2022,
rendered findings as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
11. Thus, it is made clear that the service
regulations are in force and such regulations are
approved by the Government by virtue of the powers
conferred under the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board, 1970. When the Act is in force, and by
virtue of the said statute, service regulations are framed,
then, all the selections, recruitments and regularizations
as well as the permanent absorptions are to be strictly
made in accordance with law with the statute and the
provisions of the service regulations of the TWAD Board.
This apart, the Act as well as the Service Regulations,
1972 will prevail over the general law. For the purpose of
TWAD Board, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board, 1970 as well as the service regulations
of the year 1972 would be the special law and therefore,
the Conferment of Permanent Status Act is to be construed
as a general law. Under these circumstances, the Special
Act and Special Regulations would prevail over the
Conferment of Permanent Status for the purpose of
considering the case for grant of regularization and
permanent absorption in Board's services.
12. In view of the fact that the special law will
prevail over the general law and further, the TWAD
Board Act and the service regulations constituted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
virtue of the powers conferred under Section 73 of the
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, the
provisions of the Conferment of Permanent Status Act
would not be applicable for grant of regularization and
permanent absorption, with reference to the employees of
the TWAD Board. Accordingly, the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment [Conferment of
Permanent Status] Act, 1981 is not applicable to the
employees of the TWAD Board for granting the benefit of
regularization and permanent absorption. Accordingly,
issues 1 and 3 are answered.
26. The Inspector of Labour has not considered any
of these legal principles settled by the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court of India. Contrarily, mechanical
approach has been adopted by the Inspector of Labour
and the relief of permanent status is granted by merely
verifying the length of services rendered by these casual
laborers. In other words, he simply verified certain
records to find out whether the casual laborers have
served 480 days are not. If so, then pass an order for
grant of permanent status. This being the routine and
mechanical orders passed by these Inspector of Labours,
this Court has to consider the legal principles,
implications and adverse consequences as well as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
violation of the Constitutional principles.
27. To elaborate the adverse consequences in
respect of these routine orders of the Inspector of
Labours, for instance, large number of such casual
laborers are engaged by various Government
Organizations, undertakings, Boards and Government
Company. The casual laborers were engaged on daily
wage basis in order to complete projects or to meet out
certain emergency or exigency. Thus, the casual laborers
were not appointed by following the recruitment rules in
force. The engagement of these contract laborers on daily
wage basis are made on the basis of mere identification.
At the outset, all such engagements are made at the choice
of the authorities and they are appointed even through
certain corrupt practices, favoritism or nepotism. Thus,
all these engagements of casual laborers, on need basis,
are either illegal or irregular appointment.
29. The adverse consequences of this method of
grant of confirmation would be that the principles of
equality in employment enunciated in the Constitution is
violated. The rule of reservations are violated. The
scheme of appointment under the recruitment rules are
also violated. Thus, the Constitutional Courts cannot
approve such appointments, regularization or permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
absorption, which would have adverse impact on the
concept of social justice as resolved by “We, the people of
India” in the preamble of the Constitution.
“Individualization of justice” can never be appreciated.
Sometimes one may contend that the molding of relief is
not preferable or such molding may be considered as an
excess exercise. However, the scope of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been elaborated by the
Constitution Bench and the Larger Benches of the
Constitutional Courts across the Country. Thus, as a
custodian of the Constitution, the High Court has to
ensure that the principles of social justice, philosophy and
ethos of the Constitution are also taken care, while
granting the relief or molding of the relief. The writ
petition under Article 226 cannot be compared with the
Civil suit, wherein the issues alone are to be settled with
reference to the documents and evidences. Even in a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Courts are empowered to mould the relief in order to
ensure that Constitutional mandates and perspectives are
implemented and protected. This being the spirit of the
Constitution, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in
“Uma Devi Case”, is not only the guiding principles, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
also binding the law under Article 141 of the Constitution
of India. Thus, any other judgment of any High Court or
the judgment of the two judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India denuded of their status as
precedents. All the Courts across the Country are bound
by the Constitution Bench judgment in the matter of grant
of permanent absorption, with reference to the illegal or
irregular appointments.
34. The Inspectors of Labour are routinely and
mechanically passing orders conferring permanent status
without following the legal principles settled by the Apex
Court of India. Number of such orders are passed.
However, the fact remains that the casual labourers/daily
wage rated employees who were engaged by the
Government Departments or Government Undertakings or
Organizations are very much aware of their engagements
and they have no right of permanent absorption. The
terms and conditions of such services are also known to
these casual labourers. Accepting all such terms and
conditions, they are working as casual labourers/daily
wage rated employees. Under these circumstances, the
Modus Operandi being adopted by these casual laborers
or their Organizations/Unions is that to file an
application before the Inspector of Labour, get a routine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
order of the permanent status and file a writ petition
seeking implementation of the order of Inspector of
Labour. Thereafter, secure permanent appointment in the
Government Organizations, Undertakings and
Departments. This Modus Operandi being followed by
these causal labourers for securing permanent
appointment in Government Organizations/Undertakings
is in violation of the Constitution of Scheme of
appointments and recruitment rules can never be
approved by the High Court. Such a practice is going on
for the purpose of securing public appointments across
the State, more specifically, in Government Undertakings,
Government Organizations and Government
Departments. The Standing Orders are not adopted by the
Government Departments/Organizations. When a
separate statute is in force governing the Organizations
and Service Regulations are also framed by virtue of
powers conferred under the Act, then there is no reason
whatsoever to grant such routine orders of permanent
status by the Inspector of Labour under the general law.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
strong opinion that such method of back door
appointments/permanent absorptions must be stopped at
once in order to enforce the principles of equal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
opportunity in employment enunciated in the Constitution
of India.
Such a back door route created for securing permanent
absorption is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Accordingly,
Issue No.2 is answered.
8. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on
hand. Therefore, the first respondent rightly passed the order dated
10.02.2021 by giving permanent status to the petitioners by fixing pay
matrix at the minimum of the level since they are not entitled to be
regularized. As such, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is not helpful to the case on hand and this
Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders.
9. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
04.11.2025
Neutral citation: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (WS3) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2.The Managing Director,
TWAD Board,
No.31, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai-5
3.The Executive Engineer, (TWAD Board),
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board,
RWS Division,
No.120, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Building,
Collectorate Campus,
Ramanathapuram
4.The Inspector of Police,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District
5.The Government Advocate,
High Court of Madras
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:02:32 pm )
