Madras High Court
V.Mani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 April, 2026
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
WA No. 937 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WA No. 937 of 2026, WA No. 944 of 2026,WA No. 998 of 2026,
WA No. 945 of 2026,WA No. 986 of 2026,WA No. 960 of 2026
and WA No. 957 of 2026
V.Mani
S/o.Vellappa Gounder,
2/335, Paraithottam,
Anbu Nagar, Chinnamudalaipatti,
Namakkal District
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2. The Director of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj, Chennai 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
4. The Project Director cum Member Secretary
Dharmapuri District Socio Economic
Development Society,
Dharmapuri
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 937 of 2026
5. The Secretary
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, Park Town,
Chennai
..Respondent(s)
in all the Cases
WA No. 944 of 2026
M.Babu
S/o. Muniappan,
No.2/148, Valluvar Nagar,
Oddapatti,
Dharmapuri-705.
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 945 of 2026
Selvaraju
S/o. Ramasamy,
3/92, Chinna Mottai Street,
Thosalampatti,
Salem District.
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 957 of 2026
P. Arivalagan
S/o. Perumal,
D.No.4/633, Kadalaimandi Street,
Teachers Colony,
Dharmapuri-637 701.
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 960 of 2026
K. Karuppannan
S/o. Kumaraswamy,
D.No.19-1/6D-1,
Jakkappan Nagar 8th Street,
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 937 of 2026
Krishnagiri 635 001.
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 986 of 2026
Sekar,
S/o.Basavarajan,
1/426-14, Sathiya Sai Nagar,
Near Sri Sathiya Sai Samuga Maiyam,
Near Housing Board 2nd phase, Kattiganapalli,
Krishnagiri 635 002.
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 998 of 2026
S.Jeyaseelan
S/o.Sarangabani,
D.No.1/273,Chetti Street,
Nallampalli, Pagalahalli,
Dharmapuri District
..Appellant(s)
WA No. 937 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2636 of 2025.
WA No. 944 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2690 of 2025.
WA No. 945 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2656 of 2025.
WA No. 957 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 937 of 2026
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2649 of 2025.
WA No. 960 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2696 of 2025.
WA No. 986 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2692 of 2025.
WA No. 998 of 2026
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 11-11-2025 made in WP.No.2645 of 2025.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Nandha Kumar,
in all the cases
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yeshwanth,
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4
Mr.I.Abrar Mohammed Abdullah,
Standing Counsel for R5
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SENTHILKUMAR J.) These intra court appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the Writ Court in WP.No.2636 of 2025, WP.No.2690 of 2025, WP.No.2656 of 2025, WP.No.2649 of 2025, WP.No.2696 of 2025, WP.No.2692 of 2025 and WP.No.2645 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025.
__________ Page4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026
2.The subject Writ Petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioners to absorb them in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and also to regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment in the Dharmapuri District Development Corporation Limited.
3.The case of the Appellants herein/writ petitioners in the writ Petition was that the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.672, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 15.04.1975, whereby a company designated as the Dharmapuri District Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “DDDCL”) was constituted under the Companies Act, 1956. After constitution of DDDCL, the Appellants were temporarily appointed in various posts from the year 1975. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer and then as Assistant Executive Engineer and they have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, in the year of 2014 itself. In the meantime, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.14, Rural Development (SGSY) Department dated 21.01.2000 and directed the 2 nd respondent to wind up the DDDCL and to establish District Rural Development Agency in its place.
__________ Page5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026
4.It is the further case of the Appellants that a proposal was sent by the 2 nd and 3rd respondents to the 1st respondent seeking to absorb the staff of the DDDCL as Government servants with protection of pay and continuity of service for pensionary and other benefits. In this regard, the 1 st respondent issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.61 Rural Development (E1) Department dated 26.02.2001, permitting the 2nd respondent to take three Assistant Executive Engineers, one Assistant Engineer and twelve Junior Engineers of the DDDCL on deputation basis in the panchayat development unit till their absorption.
5.Thereafter, the 3rd respondent had also sent proposals for absorption of the staff in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and other agencies. Pending proposals, the 1st respondent passed another order in G.O.Ms.No.61 Rural Development (SGSY) Department, dated 06.06.2003 ordering the formation of Dharmapuri District Socio Economic Development Society and directing that the absorption of the employees of the erstwhile DDDCL either in the newly formed society or in the Rural Development Department would be decided by the 3rd respondent in consultation with the 2nd respondent.
__________ Page6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026
6.The proposal of the absorption of the employees of the DDDCL sent by the 2nd and 3rd respondents was thereafter scrutinised by the 1 st respondent, who classified the employees under two categories viz., the employees who come under the purview of Tamil Nade Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TNPSC”) and the employees who do not. Based on such classification, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.57, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department dated 20.08.2013, absorbing only those employees who do not come under the purview of TNPSC and who were in service as on the date of the said Government Order. Accordingly, certain categories such as Office Assistants, Drivers and Watchman were absorbed and their services were regularised from the date of their initial appointment in the erstwhile corporation. However, the posts held by the appellants come under the purview of TNPSC and moreover they had already retired from their service.
7.Aggrieved by the non-absorption, the appellants had earlier filed a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.14734 of 2015 &etc., and this Court, by order dated 19.02.2020, directed consideration of their representations. As the same were __________ Page7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026 not considered, they filed another batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.34047 of 2023 & etc. and by order dated 11.01.2024, this Court again directed the first respondent to pass orders on merits. Pursuant to the same, the 1 st respondent rejected the request of the appellants, which led to the filing of the Writ Petitions and the same came to be dismissed by the Writ Court.
8.The Writ Court, after taking into consideration the entire facts held that the proposals sent by the respondents were only recommendatory in nature and that acceptance or rejection of such proposals lies within the discretion of the Government. The Writ Court further held that since the appellants fall under the category governed by TNPSC and had already attained superannuation, the question of absorption as Government servants and regularisation of their services from the date of initial appointment does not arise, and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which the present Appeals have been preferred.
9.Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants, the learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent.
__________ Page8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026
10.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no impediment for absorbing the appellants and for regularising their service from the date of their initial appointment in the erstwhile corporation and that the proposals forwarded by the authorities ought to have been acted upon.
11.However, the proposals forwarded by the respondents were only proposals and not binding orders. Accepting or rejecting the proposal is the sole discretion of the Government. Taking into consideration that the appellants fall under the purview of TNPSC and that they had already retired from service even prior to the filing of the Writ Petitions, the question of absorption and regularisation of their service cannot be taken into consideration.
12.Though the learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the proposals could be acted upon and could be given retrospective effect for the purpose of notional promotion, regularisation and consequential retirement benefits, we are not impressed on such submissions as the writ Court rightly observed that it is only a proposal and there is no mandate for the Government to accept the same. Apart from that, the writ Court has also taken into __________ Page9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026 consideration of the fact that at the time of filing of the writ petition itself, the appellants got superannuated. Therefore, the claim made by the appellants cannot be acted upon. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court and the present Appeals are devoid of merits.
13.Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
22-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sai
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 937 of 2026
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai 600 015.
3.The District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
4.The Project Director cum Member Secretary Dharmapuri District Socio Economic Development Society, Dharmapuri
5.The Secretary Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Park Town, Chennai __________ Page11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 937 of 2026 R.SURESH KUMAR J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
sai WA No. 937 of 2026, WA No. 944 of 2026,WA No. 998 of 2026, WA No. 945 of 2026,WA No. 986 of 2026,WA No. 960 of 2026 and WA No. 957 of 2026 22-04-2026 __________ Page12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis