Allowed

P.Chinnathambi v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC4 May 2017WP/10031/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition by a government employee (Masalchi) seeking regularization of service. The Court quashed the impugned Government Order to the extent of the date of regularization, directing service to be regularized retrospectively with effect from 13.01.1987 as no illegality existed in the initial appointment.

What did the court decide?

Quashed theGovernment Orderto the extent of the date of regularization; directed service regularization with effect from 13.01.1987.

P.Chinnathambi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 04.05.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam

¶5

Writ Petition No.10031 of 2013

¶6

P.Chinnathambi ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepuak, Chennai-5.
3. The District Collector,
Salem, Salem District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Yearcadu,
Yearcadu Taluk,
Salem District. ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.388 Revenue (Personnel) 8(2) Department Dated 20.07.2007 and quash the same in so far as regularizing the Petitioner's service as Masalchi w.e.f.1.1.2006 instead of from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 13.01.1982 and consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Masalchi w.e.f.13.01.1982 with all monetary and other attendant benefits.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kolandaivelu For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjeyan Special Government Pleader

¶10

The facts in Nutshell as narrated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Writ Petitioner was appointed as Masalchi on 13.01.1982 and the initial appointment was made through District Employment Exchange by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. The Sub Collector, Salem in his proceedings dated 17.01.1989 regularised the service of the Writ Petitioner as Masalcchi with effect from 13.01.1987 from the date of which the post of Masalchi was sanctioned. A proposal was sent to the Government seeking regularisation of the services of the Writ Petitioner since at the time of appointment, there was no irregularity in the appointment.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Writ Petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Masalchi initially and there was no irregularity in the appointment. He was appointed in the sanctioned post and he is continuing as full time employee. A proposal was submitted to the Government seeking regularisation of services from the date of initial appointment. The Government after deliberations considered the case of the Writ Petitioner and issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.388 Revenue (Personnel) 8 (2) Department, dated 20.07.2007. The Government though regularized the services of the Writ Petitioner, the benefit of regularization is granted with effect from 01.01.2006. Aggrieved by the date of regularisation, the Writ Petitioner moved this Writ Petition for a prayer to extend the regularization from the date of his initial appointment.

¶14

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that though there was no irregularity in the initial appointment of the writ petitioner, there was a delay in submitting the proposal seeking regularization for which the Government need not be blamed. The Government on receipt of the proposal considering the case of the Writ Petitioner granted regularization on 01.01.2006 and there is no infirmity in the Government Order.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that since there was no irregularity or illegality in the initial appointment of the Writ Petitioner, he is entitled for regularization from the date of his initial appointment. When the Writ Petitioner possessed the required qualifications and age at the time of appointment and further the appointment was through the employment exchange, there was no irregularity in the initial appointment. Hence, the grounds raised by the Writ Petitioner deserves merit consideration.

¶16

The respondents are unable to furnish any reason for restricting the regularization of the services with effect from 01.01.2006. The date from which the regularization was extended to the petitioner has no relevance and no nexus. Such being the factum of the case, the Writ petition deserves to be considered

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

and accordingly the Impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.388 Revenue (Personnel) 8(2) Department dated 20.07.2007 is quashed to the limited extent of date of regularization. The Sub Collector, Salem in his proceedings dated 17.1.1989, regularized the service of the Writ Petitioner on completion of his five years of service and the completion of five years falls on 13.01.1987. Accordingly the service of the petitioner is to be regularized with effect from 13.01.1987.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the Writ Petitioner will not claim any arrears of pay consequent to the retrospective regularization. All Notional benefits consequent to the retrospective regularization shall be extended to the Writ Petitioner and monetary benefits can be granted prospectively.

¶20

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order
as to costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
arr/ub
To
1. The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepuak, Chennai-5.
3. The District Collector,
Salem, Salem District.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

The Tahsildar, Yearcadu, Yearcadu Taluk, Salem District.

¶23

+1 cc to M/S N.Kolandaivelu, Advocate sr.36672 +1cc to Government Pleader Sr.36957

¶24

Writ Petition No.10031 of 2013

¶25

RSK(CO) rvr 17/05/2017

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Chinnathambi v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chinnathambi v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs U/I. Owhing Indian Railways

Mr.S.Kannan, Vs the Secretary to Govt of T.N.

M. Ayyavoo Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Harrisons Malayalam Limited, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep

D.Velu Vs 1.THE District Collector

V. Dhandapani Vs the Personal Assistant