Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Raja on 4 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 3196 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 3196 of 2025
AND
CMP.No.26007 of 2025
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary
Agriculture Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai
2. The Commissioner cum Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai.
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Thiruthuraipoondi,
Thiruvaur District. ..Appellant
Vs
P.Raja
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 08.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 26294 of 2024.
For Appellant: Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Spl.GP
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
W.A No. 3196 of 2025
For Respondent :
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 26294 of 2024. By the said order, the order
dated 15.07.2024 passed by the second appellant, refusing to regularize the
services of the respondent/writ petitioner, was set aside, and a direction was
issued to the appellants to regularize the services of the respondent/writ
petitioner with effect from 21.12.2005, i.e., the date on which he had completed
ten years of service, and to grant him service and monetary benefits.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a Foam Worker on
22.02.1995 on daily wages by the third respondent and has been working
continuously without any break for more than 29 years. His request for
regularization was rejected on the ground that G.O. Ms. No. 74, P&AR
Department, dated 27.06.2013, does not provide for automatic regularization
even if daily-rated workers have completed ten years of service, and that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
source of appointment under which such workers were engaged must be
examined. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, set aside the said
rejection order. Hence, this writ appeal.
3. Mr. E. Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader for the
appellant/State, submitted that the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner
on daily wages, being de facto and not through regular recruitment, does not
entitle him to regularization of service merely by virtue of having completed ten
years, as per G.O. Ms. No. 74, dated 27.06.2013. It was further submitted that
under the said G.O., the respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to
regularization, and that the learned Single Judge, by erroneously holding that
the G.O. is prospective in nature, wrongly set aside the impugned order.
4. The arguments advanced by the learned Special Government Pleader
for the appellant and the materials placed on record have been duly considered.
5. The core issue involved in the present appeal is whether the
respondent/writ petitioner, who had been engaged as a daily-rated worker in the
year 1995 and had completed ten years of continuous service in 2005, is entitled
to seek regularization of his services notwithstanding the applicability of G.O.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
Ms. No. 74, P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2013.
6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the order in G.O. Ms. No. 74,
P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2013, was challenged before this Court in W.P.
No. 29346 of 2013 and connected writ petitions. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court, by a common order dated 22.09.2017, quashed the said G.O. insofar as
paragraph 6 was concerned, by which the Government Order had been given
retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge, relying on the said decision of
the Coordinate Bench which has attained finality, rightly held that the
respondent/writ petitioner, having been appointed in 1995 and having
completed ten years of service in 2005, does not fall within the purview of the
said G.O. As similarly situated persons have been regularized, the
respondent/writ petitioner cannot be denied such benefit, as doing so would be
discriminatory and arbitrary.
7. The respondent/writ petitioner entered service in 1995 and completed
ten years of continuous service well before the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 74.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that the said
G.O. has no retrospective application to the case of the respondent/writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
petitioner. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The appellant/State is granted a period of three (3) months from today to
comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
04.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
