S.Velmurugan vs The Secretary To Government
2026 Latest Caselaw 759 Mad

Madras High Court

S.Velmurugan vs The Secretary To Government on 25 February, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                                             WP(MD).No.507 of 2018




                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                       ORDER RESERVED ON                          : 16.02.2026

                                       ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 25.02.2026

                                                 CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                                W.P.(MD).No.507 of 2018


                     S.Velmurugan                                                        ....Petitioner

                                                                Vs
                     1.The Secretary to Government
                     Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Departments
                     St.George Fort
                     Chennai

                     2.The Director
                     Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
                     Panagal Building
                     Saidapet, Chennai

                     3.The District Collector
                     Dindigul District
                     Dindigul

                     4.The Project Officer
                     Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
                     Dindigul District
                     Dindigul                                                            ....Respondents


                     Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
                     the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.1896/2015/U.Va.3, dated


                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )
                                                                                             WP(MD).No.507 of 2018


                     17.07.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the
                     petitioner's service and disburse all other service and monitory benefits with
                     effect from 05.02.1999.


                                        For Petitioner         : Mr.S.Chellapandian

                                        For Respondents       :Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
                                                              Additional Government Pleader

                                                                   ORDER

The present writ petition has been seeking to quash the order passed by

the third respondent herein wherein the request of the petitioner to regularise

his services as Night Watchman with effect from 05.02.1999 has been

rejected.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The petitioner herein was appointed as Night Watchman on

05.02.1999 on a daily wage basis in the third respondent office. According to

the petitioner, he had registered himself before the Employment Exchange.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel

and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006 and

G.O.Ms.No.74 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated

27.06.2013 and contends that the petitioner is eligible to get an order of

regularisation on completion of 10 years of service.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a

similarly placed person by name A.Jebaraj Solomon who was appointed on

20.08.2005 in the same department was regularised under G.O.Ms.No.58

Rural Welfare and Panchayat Raj Department dated 20.06.2013 by relaxing

the age and not been sponsored through Employment Exchange.

4.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the

petitioner is working in the department for more than 25 years as a daily wage

on full time basis and therefore, his services have to be regularized. He relied

upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online

SC 3826 (Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) especially paragraph Nos.26

and 27 of the said judgment. He also relied upon another judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 144 ( Shripal and another

Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad ) in support of his contentions.

5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed only on a daily

wage basis and therefore, he is only a casual employee and not entitled to any

regularisation. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 (State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh

and others) and another judgment reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113 ( State of

Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

Registration Department and another Vs. A.Singamuthu) and contended

that a casual employee would not be entitled to seek regularisation.

6.The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted

that as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F)

Department, dated 28.02.2006, the employees should have completed 10

years of service on 01.01.2006. However, the petitioner has not completed 10

years of services as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said Government Order is

not applicable to the writ petitioner. He further submitted that G.O.(Ms).No.

74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013

is a clarificatory Government Order for G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and

Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. Therefore, under

both the Government Orders, the petitioner is not eligible to get any

regularisation. According to him, the petitioner was appointed without being

called through Employment Exchange or following any selection process.

The petitioner's appointment is a backdoor entry and regularisation can be

granted only strictly in accordance with any Government Order that is

applicable to the writ petitioner.

7.In the present case, the petitioner has not been covered under any one

of the Government order, would not be entitled to get any regularisation.

Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order impugned in the writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused

the material records.

(C).Discussion:

9.A perusal of the appointment order of the writ petitioner dated

05.02.1999 reveals that the petitioner has been appointed as a temporary

Night Watchman on daily wage basis. There is no reference whatsoever that it

is a part time employment. The petitioner claims benefits of G.O.Ms.No.22,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006.

However, for claiming any benefit under the said Government Order, the

petitioner should have completed 10 years of temporary service as on

01.01.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 10 years as on the

said date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim benefit under the above said

Government Order.

10.The petitioner is working as a Night Watchman continuously from

the year 1999 onwards for more than 25 years. However, the case of the

petitioner is not governed by any Government Order governing regularisation

of employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2024

SCC Online SC 3826 (Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) in Paragraph

Nos. 26 and 27 is held as follows:

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody.

This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

11.One Jebaraj Solomon who was appointed on a daily wage basis on

20.08.2005 in the same department was granted regularisation by way of

G.O.Ms.No.58 Rural Welfare and Panchayat Raj Department dated

20.06.2013. In the said case, the employee has not even completed 10 yeas of

service when regularisation was granted by way of Government Order. In

fact, the said Jebaraj Solomon had been appointed 6 years after the

appointment of the writ petitioner. In such circumstances, the case of the

petitioner cannot be discriminated and considering the fact that the petitioner

has already put in more than 25 years of service, his service have to be

regularised.

12.The petitioner has completed 10 years of service in the year 2009.

The similarly placed person has been granted regularisation from 20.06.2013

onwards as cited supra. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the petitioner's service could also be regularised from 1st July

2013. The petitioner is about to retire in March 2026.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

(D).Conclusion:

13. In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is inclined to

pass the following orders.

a).The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside.

b)The respondents are directed to regularise the services of

the writ petitioner with effect from 01.07.2013 with monetary

benefits from the date of the orders impugned in the writ petition

namely from 17.07.2017.

c)The pensionary service of the writ petitioner shall be

calculated from 01.07.2013. However, the monetary benefit shall

be released to the petitioner from 17.07.2017.

d)The said exercise shall be completed within a period of

twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

14.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed

of. No costs.

                                                                                                 25.02.2026


                     Internet : Yes/No
                     Index : Yes/No
                     NCC        : Yes/No
                     msa






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                     ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )




                     To

                     1.The Secretary to Government

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Departments St.George Fort Chennai

2.The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai

3.The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul

4.The Project Officer Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Dindigul District Dindigul

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

msa

Pre-delivery order made in

25.02.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:01 pm )