Madras High Court
S/O.Raman vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 20 December, 2024
W.P. No.35033 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.No.35033 of 2013
1. N.KANNIAPPAN
S/O.NARAYANASAMY
2. P.ALAMELU
W/O.PERUMA
3. R.PREMKUMAR
S/O.M.V.RADHAKRISHNAN
4. M.PARTHASARATHY
S/O.MUTHUKIRHNAN
5. C.SAMPATH
S/O.CHINNAKUTTY
6. R.KARUNAKARAN
S/O.RAMASAMY
7. V.PALANI
S/O.VENKADESAN
8. R.SANTHI
W/O.V.RAVI
9. K.GOVINDARAJAN
S/O.K.KANNAN
10. S.SANGEETHA
D/O.SANKARAN
11. R.JOHN
S/O.RAYAPPAN
12. S.VELMURUGAN
S/O.SHESHACHALAM
13. P.VELU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 9
W.P. No.35033 of 2013
S/O.PERUMAL
14. G.MOHAN
S/O.M.GOVINDASAMY
15. S.SAMUDIRAPAUL
16. R.CHANDRASEKARAN
17. S.MARIMUTHU
S/O.SADAYAPPAN
18. P.SUNDAR
S/O.PATTABIRAM
19. V.PREMALATHA
W/O.K.LAKSHMIPATHY
20.V.R.DHAMODARAN
S/O.V.C.RAJA
21. WILLIAMS
S/O.DHARMARAJ
22. R.SATHIYAMOORTY
S/O.S.RAJI NAIDU
23. K.R.RAMESH BABU
S/O.K.P.RAGHAVACHARI
24. A. THULASI
D/O.C.AYYAPPAKANNU
25. J.SHARMILA
W/O.MUNWARBASHA
26. N.THANGAVELU
S/O.NALLATHAMPI
27. R.SARAVANAPANDI
S/O.M.RAMACHANDRAN
28. A.CHELLAKANNU
29. G.MANI
S/O.GOVINDARAJ
30. R.KRISHNAN
S/O.PEPPI RANGASAMI
31. R.KISHNAN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 9
W.P. No.35033 of 2013
S/O.RAMAN
32. P.AYYAPPAN
S/O.PALANISAMY
33. R.KARTHICK
S/O.RAMALINGAM
34. R.RAGUPATHI
S/O.G.RAMU
35. P.ALLIRAJ
S/O.P.PERUMAL
36. GMURUGAN
S/O.GANDHI
37. K.PERUMAL
S/O.KANDASAMY
38. S.NAVABARATHI
W/O.M.ETHIRAJ
39. M.BANUMATHI
W/O.MANOHARAN
40.S.MURUGAN
S/O.SABAPATHI
41. G.PALANI
C/O.N.KANNIAPPAN,RESIDING AT NO.54, OLD NO.27,
SAIDAI T. DURAISAMYNAGAR, KOTOOR,
CHENNAI 85 ...Petitioners
Versus
1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP BY THE SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 9
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
GUINDY, CHENNAI 25 ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3 of 9
W.P. No.35033 of 2013
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for
records relating to the first respondent's letter No. 25377/B1/2008-28dated
25.07.2013, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners on completion of 10 years of
NMR/Casual labourer services with all benefits both service and monetary.
For Petitioners : Mr.L. Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr. C. Jayaprakash
ORDER
Though this writ petition has been filed by as many as 41 petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the writ petition in respect of 34 petitioners and is pressing the writ petition in respect of the petitioners 4,5,7,10,18,19 and 38 only.
2. Through the impugned orders, the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services on completion of 10 years of service in terms of G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O. M.S. No.74 dated 27.06.2013 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not completed 10 years of service prior to 01.01.2006 and on certain other grounds. The issue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 9 W.P. No.35033 of 2013 whether the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O. M.S. No.74 dated 27.06.2013 are available only to the employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 or to the employees who have completed 10 years of service after 01.01.2006 has fallen for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 606 and 2830 of 2019 (M. Mahalingam vs. The Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Public Works Department, Chennai and 3 others) and the learned Division Bench, by a judgment dated 16.08.2023 has held as under.
"17. It is also not the case of the Government that they had not regularised any such casual labourers/NMRs subsequent to the decision made in Uma Devi's case. It is true that similarly placed persons cannot seek equality by relying upon a decision which is illegal. In the present case, the Government Orders regularising similarly placed persons was on a conscious policy decision taken by the Government, which the Government had decided to be not disturbed in G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013. The said Government Orders have also not been put to challenge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 9 W.P. No.35033 of 2013 before this Court. A policy decision taken by the Government cannot be interfered with by the Court unless or until, it is challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, arbitrariness or colourable exercise of power. It is not the case that such Government Orders, had been issued on any of the afore~stated grounds and infact the Government itself stands by such Government Orders. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the private individuals in these Writ Appeals cannot be non-suited by relying upon the Hon-ble Apex Court judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra) and they have to be suited on par with the similarly placed persons, who have been regularised by the Government in their policy decision taken in G.O. Ms.No.334 Public Works (C2)Dept., dated 19.10.2007, G.O.Ms.No.134 Public Works (C2) Deprt., dated 07.05.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.202 Public Works (C2) Dept., dated 01.08.2012.
18.In the light of the above reasoning and findings, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had been impugned in all these https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 9 W.P. No.35033 of 2013 Writ Appeals would have to be interfered with and accordingly they are set aside and as a sequel, the Government is directed to consider the claim of the appellants herein and shall be regularised their services in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 by taking the date of notification, dated 27.06.2013, as to be the cut off date for fixing the period of completion of 10 years of service.
3. In the light of the above decision of the learned Division Bench, the case of the seven petitioners have to be reconsidered by the first respondent by duly taking into consideration the proposals submitted by the second respondent in proceedings No.13585/CW1/2009 dated 27.01.2012.
4. In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2013 in No. 25377/B1/2008-28 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for considering the proposal dated 27.01.2012 submitted by the second respondent by duly taking into consideration the decision rendered by the Division Bench in W.A. No. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 9 W.P. No.35033 of 2013 606 and 2830 of 2019, dated 16.08.2023 (cited supra), and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in respect of the petitioners 4,5,7,10,18,19 and 38 only and the same is dismissed so far as the other 34 petitioners are concerned. No costs.
20.12.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
bga
To:
1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP BY THE SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 9
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GUINDY, CHENNAI 25 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
bga https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 9 W.P. No.35033 of 2013 W.P.No.35033 of 2013 20.12.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 9