Madras High Court
R.Venkatachalam vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 18 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.489 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Delivered on
25.03.2025 23.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos. 489, 627, 814 and 815 of 2024,
CMP No.5597 of 2024 in WA No.814 of 2024
and CMP No.5605 of 2024 in WA No.815 of 2024
WA No.489 of 2024
1.R.Venkatachalam
2.K.C.Anandaraj Umapathy
3.J.Arulneri Selvan
4.C.Jeyadurai
5.A.Srinivasan
6.M.S.Hemalatha
7.R.Selvarajan .. Appellants
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
3.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer(General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
4.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer (General),
Water Resources Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
5.S.Kulanthaiyan
6.B.Devan
7.P.Senthil Kumar
8. Joseph E. Runstradet Perez
R8 is impleaded vide order of court dated 18.02.2025
made in CMP No.29384/2024
in WA No.489 of 2024 (RSMJ & GAMJ)
9. S.Thirumalai Kumar
R9 is impleaded vide order of court dated 18.02.2025
made in CMP No.3592/2025
in WA No.489 of 2024 (RSMJ & GAMJ)
10. T.N. Prabhaharan
11. C.Mani Kandarajan ...Respondents
R10 & 11 are impleaded vide order of court dated 04.03.2025
made in CMP No.5025/2025
in WA No.489 of 2024 (RSMJ & GAMJ)
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 06.02.2024 made in Writ Petition No. 10974 of 2023.
WA No.627 of 2024
R.Santhi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Add. Chief Secretary,
Public Works Department (PWD),
Fort St.George, Chennai~9.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resources Department (WRD),
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
3.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department (PWD),
Chepauk, Chennai~5
4.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer (General),
Water Resources Department (WRD),
Chepauk, Chennai~5
5. R.Durga
6. P.Sentil Kumar
7. A. Balu
3/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
8. S.Ganesan ... Respondents
R7 and R8 are impleaded vide order of Court
dated 04.12.2024 made in CMP Nos.26552,
14280 & 14282 of 2024 in
WA Nos.627 & 815 of 2024 [RSKJ& CSNJ]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 06.02.2024 made in Writ Petition No. 21027 of 2023.
WA No.814 of 2024
1. K. Vijayakumar
2. V.Suganthi ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
3.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer(General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
4/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
4.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer (General),
Water Resources Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
5.S.Kulanthaiyan
6.B.Devan
7.P.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 06.02.2024 made in Writ Petition No. 25161 of 2023.
WA No.815 of 2024
P.Dhanalakshmi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
3.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer(General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
5/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
4.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer (General),
Water Resources Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
5. R.K.Shanmuga
6. S. Alagarsamy ... Respondents
R5 and R6 are impleaded vide order of Court dated 04.12.2024
made in CMP Nos.26552, 14280 and 14282 of 2024
in WA Nos.627 and 815 of 2024 [RSKJ and CSNJ]
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 06.02.2024 made in Writ Petition No. 35808 of 2023.
For Appellants: Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel
For Ms.G.V.Shoba, in WA No.489 of 2024
Mr.Puhaz Gandhi, in WA No.627 of 2024
Mr.N.Subramaniyan, in WA Nos.814 & 815/24
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate General
Asst. by Mr.P.Ananda Kumar,
Govt. Advocate, for RR1 to 4 in WA
Nos.489, 627, 814 & 815 of 2024
Mr.R.Saravanakumar for R5 in
WA Nos.489 & 814 of 2024
Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Sathiya Singh
for R6 & R7 in WA Nos.489 & 814 of 2024
6/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
And R6 in WA No.627 of 2024
Ms. Dhakshayani Reddy, Senior Counsel
Mr.S.Sarath Chandran
For Ms.M.Kaviya, for R8 & R9 in
WA No.489 of 2024
Mr.Karthik Rajan, for R10 & R11
in WA No.489 of 2024
Mr.R.Sampath Kumar,
For R5 in WA No.627 of 2024
Mr. R.Jayaprakash
For R7 & R8 in WA No.627 of 2024
Mr.P.Rajendran
For R5 and R6 in WA No.815 of 2024
****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) All these appeals are directed against a common order dated 06.02.2024 made in a batch of four Writ Petitions filed by the appellants in these appeals, challenging para 9(E) of G.O.Ms.No.158, Public Works (D2) Department, dated 01.11.2021, insofar as it makes the option exercised by 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 the appellants herein opting for Water Resources Department as final and irreversible and for a consequential direction to seek fresh options from the appellants and allot them to the Public Works Department. A consequential prayer was also sought for to revise the promotions made pursuant to G.O.(2D) No.23, Public Works (A1) Department dated 30.08.2022.
2. All the appellants were recruited as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department in a selection process that was initiated between the years 1997 and 1999 and they formally joined the Public Works Department in the year 2000. In the year 2006, the Government took a decision to bifurcate the Public Works Department into two different departments, namely, the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department and two Government Orders were passed in G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 08.11.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 11.01.2008 effecting the bifurcation.
3. The said Government Orders granted pay protection to the employees of both the departments, assuring a step up in pay if any junior 8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 gets promoted in the concerned department and as a consequence draws a higher pay. The issue relating to the seniority was subjudice in the sense there were several writ petitions in which the issue as to whether the seniority should be determined on the basis of the roster points (communal reservation) or on the basis of the marks obtained in the selection process.
4. This Court had, by its judgment in WA No.2730 of 2012 dated 31.03.2015, held that the seniority of persons recruited in the same recruitment process should be determined on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the communal roster. The said judgment of this court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also. However, the Government of Tamil Nadu sought to nullify the judgment of this court as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by introducing Section 40 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The said provision was subject to challenge before this court and a Division Bench of this court held that section 40(1) of the Act, 2016, is ultra-virus the Constitution of India in WP No.6649 of 2017 vide its judgment dated 15.11.2019. A Review Petition was also dismissed.
9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
5. The said judgment of the Division Bench was put in issue before the Hon’bleSupreme Court in SLP Nos.2861 to 2865 of 2020 and the said Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on 06.07.2020. Complaining that the orders in CA No.4954 of 2016 which arose out of the proceedings in Writ Appeal No.2730 of 2012 etc. batch was not complied with, Contempt Petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.638 of 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 11.02.2021 directed the judgment dated 22.01.2016 shall be complied with. There was also Contempt Petitions as well as Review Petitions filed in this court and those petitions came to be dismissed on 26.03.2021.
6. It is in this backdrop, the appellants who were working as Assistant Engineers were required to exercise their option as to whether they would like to migrate to the newly formed Water Resources Department or they would continue with the Public Works Department. It is the claim of the appellants that they refused to give the option, since the issue relating to seniority was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is the claim of 10/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 the appellants that respondents 1 to 3 herein promised to treat the option as temporary and assured them that they would be given an opportunity to modify their option or change their option, after the disposal of the Contempt Petitions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, to their surprise, the Government issued G.O. Ms.No.158 dated 01.11.2021 which made the option irreversible, the relevant clause viz. 9(E) of G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 01.11.2021 reads as follows:
“9.(E) The Option exercised by the Engineering personnel belonging to the common seniority, working in the categories from Junior Engineer / Assistant Engineer to Chief Engineer would be final and non-
reversible.
If the number of officials opted to a particular Department surpasses the number of sanctioned posts in that Department, they shall be considered for deployment in either of the Department based on their existing Batch Seniority.
The allocation of Engineers between Public 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 Works Department and Water Resources Department shall be done on tentative basis, subject to the outcome of the pending court case before the Supreme Court of India regarding revision of seniority based on merit.
The list of option exercised by Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers as on 30.06.2021 to Water Resources Department and Public Works Department are attached as Annexure-l and Annexure-ll respectively to this order.”
7. It is this clause contained in G.O.Ms No.158, which is subject matter of challenge. It was the contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that the option exercised is only temporary and based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellants should be permitted to revise their option. The learned Single Judge did not agree with 12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 the claim of the appellants. He also disbelieved the claim that an assurance was given by the respondents 1 to 3 that these persons who had exercised their options before the disposal of the Contempt Petitions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court should be allowed to retrace their steps and revise their options.
8. The learned Single Judge concluded that having exercised their option after the disposal of the main proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirming the judgment of this court in WP No.6649 of 2017, the appellants cannot be allowed to revise their options. After the year 2006, separate recruitments have been made for both the departments and it is only the Engineers, who are recruited during the recruitment process of the year 1997 to 1999, who will be affected by the revision of seniority as per the merit list.
9. However, subsequently, in the Contempt Petitions, by order dated 09.05.2024 in P. Madhu vs. K.Nanadakumar and another, made in Contempt Petition (Civil) @ Diary No.6415/21 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had fixed the cutoff date permitting the Government to go by the roaster seniority up to 10.03.2003 and for those appointments made prior to the said date, the roster seniority was directed to be maintained.
10. The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the directions issued in the Contempt Petitions would apply only to other departments and not to the Public Works Department since the directions were issued in the contempt petitions only because the employees of other departments were not parties to the earlier proceedings since it was confined only to the Engineers working in the Public Works Department. Therefore, the cutoff date, as fixed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in P. Madhu vs. K.Nanadakumar, would not apply to the cases on hand. In view of the above stated position, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions, aggrieved the appellants are on appeals.
11. We have heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.G.V.Shoba, for the appellants in WA No.489 of 2024, 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 Mr.Puhaz Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No.627 of 2024, Mr.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA Nos.814 & 815/24, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, Asst. by Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 in WA Nos.489, 627, 814 & 815 of 2024 Mr.R.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for fifth respondent in WA Nos.489 & 814 of 2024, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, for respondents 6 and 7 in WA Nos.489 & 814 of 2024 and R6 in WA No.627 of 2024, Ms. Dhakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.S.Sarath Chandran learned counsel appearing for Ms.M.Kaviya, for the respondents 8 and 9 in WA No.489 of 2024, Mr.Karthik Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10 and 11 in WA No.489 of 2024, Mr.R.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent in WA No.627 of 2024, Mr. R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 & 8 in WA No.627 of 2024 and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 & 6 in WA No.815 of 2024 15/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
12. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the issue relating to the seniority was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the option exercised by the appellants during the pendency of the dispute can only be treated as temporary and it cannot be treated as permanent. Considerable reliance is placed by the appellants on the letters written by the Chief Engineer, recommending that the appellants should be allowed to change their option since they had exercised their option only on the assurance given by the department.
13. It is also sought to be contented that the non-revision of seniority by the Government till the disposal of the Contempt Petitions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in October 2021, should not affect the appellants adversely as the same was in Contempt to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in fact, declared the Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu, as a contemnor. Since there was no finalised seniority list on the date when the options were exercised by the appellants, the options must be treated as tentative and not final. 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
14. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the counter affidavits filed to claim that the allotments to Public Works Department or Water Resources Departments was only meant to be tentative, and therefore, Clause 9(E) of G.O.Ms.No.158 which makes it final and irreversible is not valid. It is also contended that since options were exercised on the basis of the seniority list published on 12.01.2018 based on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the option exercised must only be treated as tentative and not as final.
15. Contenting contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the decision to bifurcate the Public Works Department into two was made pursuant to the recommendations of the One Man Committee and G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 11.02.2008 was issued effecting the said bifurcation. The Engineers were required to exercise their option as to whether they would like to continue in any one of the departments. Pay parity or pay protection was also assured by G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 11.02.2008 which provided that in the event of any junior getting promoted in any one of the 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 two departments, the senior would get the pay equal to that of a junior even though he would continue to work in the lower post, therefore, pay parity or pay protection was assured. Though the departments were bifurcated, the common seniority list was in existence still 2011 and promotions to higher post are effected based on the common seniority.
16. Thereafter, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.55 on 07.06.2021 completely bifurcating the two departments and it was at that time options were taken from the Engineers recruited commonly prior to the year 2006. Accordingly, the Engineers exercised their options, and they chose any one of the two departments. Realizing that chances of promotions in the Public Works Department are faster than in the Water Resources Department, the appellants have now come with the challenge, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit.
17.We have considered the rival submissions.
18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
18. No doubt, the appellants find themselves in an unenviable situation because of the fact that they had exercised their options, ignoring the judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When they were asked to exercise their options in June 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, striking down Section 40 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, as ultra-virus the Constitution of India and therefore, the appellants were aware of the fact that their seniority would be determined only by the merit or the marks obtained at the time of selection and not on the basis of the roster points.
19. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 2861 to 2865 of 2020, challenge in which was to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court dated 15.11.2019 striking down section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 as ultra-virus was delivered on 06.07.2020 itself. The review petitions were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 26.03.2021.
19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
20. In the contempt petitions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically directed implementation of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that they were still under the belief that the roster point seniority will be restored. In fact, the seniority list that was published on 13.03.2021 was not accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is very clear from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Contempt Petition No.638 of 2017 dated 01.10.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the seniority list published on 13.03.2021 and directed publication of a fresh seniority list on the basis of merit.
21. Once it is found that the appellants had chosen to exercise their option after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06.07.2020, rejecting the Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of this court striking down Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that they were still under the belief that roster seniority would be restored. What was pending on the date when the 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024 appellants exercised their option was only contempt proceedings. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that they were under the impression that the issue relating to the seniority is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, they should be allowed to revisit the option exercised by them cannot be countenanced by us.
22. The learned Single Judge has rightly found that the appellants were never assured that their options would be tentative and they would be allowed to revisit the options and we see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Once this Court had struck down section 40 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and the same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that they exercise their option under the belief that the issue relating to seniority is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In fact, by its order dated 13.03.2021 made in Contempt Petition No.638 of 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the seniority list dated 13.03.2021 on the ground that it is against the directions issued by this Court.
21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
23. In para 27 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the lis between the parties, namely the Engineers attached to the Public Works Department, achieved finality by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.01.2016. The following observations in paragraph 27 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.10.2021 would be relevant in the circumstances:
“27. At the cost of repetition, we may clarify that though various arguments were advanced with regard to the merits of the matter by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, we cannot go into those aspects inasmuch as we are exercising limited jurisdiction of contempt. Insofar as the lis between the parties is concerned, it has achieved finality by the order of this Court dated 22nd January 2016. We find that the seniority list, which is purportedly published in accordance with the order of this Court, is totally in breach of the directions of this Court. A first glance at the list would reveal that various selectees, who have received much less marks, are placed above the selectees who have received higher marks. ….” 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) W.A.No.489 of 2024
24. Once the lis had attained finality on 22.01.2016, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that they were under the impression that their seniority was still in issue when they exercise their option. We therefore do not see any merit in the appeals, the appeals therefore fail and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
23.04.2025
jv
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order
23/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Public Works Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
2.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Water Resources Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai~9
3.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer(General),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
4.The Engineer~in~Chief &
Chief Engineer (General),
Water Resources Department,
Chepauk, Chennai~5
24/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )
W.A.No.489 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
jv
W.A.Nos. 489, 627, 814 and 815 of 2024,
CMP No.5597 of 2024 in WA No.814 of 2024
and CMP No.5605 of 2024 in WA No.815 of 2024
23.04.2025
25/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm )