Partly allowed

N.Kanniappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC20 Dec 2024WP/35033/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Casual labourers sought regularisation after 10 years' service under two Government Orders, rejected on the ground they had not completed 10 years before 01.01.2006. Applying a Division Bench decision, the court set aside the rejection order and remitted the claims of seven petitioners for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.07.2013 set aside; matter remitted to first respondent to reconsider proposals dated 27.01.2012 for seven petitioners within three months.

N.Kanniappan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

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

¶13

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

¶33

Page No.1 of 9

¶34

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

S/O.PERUMAL

14. G.MOHAN

S/O.M.GOVINDASAMY

15. S.SAMUDIRAPAUL

¶39

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

¶51

S/O.S.RAJI NAIDU

¶52

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

¶61

S/O.M.RAMACHANDRAN

¶62

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

¶69

Page No.2 of 9

¶70

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,

¶92

SAIDAI T. DURAISAMYNAGAR, KOTOOR,

CHENNAI 85

...Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 9

¶97

2.THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GUINDY, CHENNAI 25

¶98

...Respondents

¶99

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

Page No.3 of 9

¶101

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶102

Prayer :

¶103

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.

¶104

For Petitioners : Mr.L. Chandrakumar

¶105

For Respondents : Mr. C. Jayaprakash

¶106

ORDER

¶107

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.

¶108

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

¶109

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶110

Page No.4 of 9

¶111

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶112

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.

¶113

"17. It is also not the case of the Government that they

¶114

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,

¶115

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

¶116

Government Orders have also not been put to challenge

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

Page No.5 of 9

¶119

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶120

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

¶121

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.

¶122

18.In the light of the above reasoning and findings, we

¶123

are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had been impugned in all these

¶124

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶125

Page No.6 of 9

¶126

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶127

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.

¶128

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.

¶129

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.

¶130

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶131

Page No.7 of 9

¶132

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶133

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

¶134

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶135

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.

¶136

20.12.2024

¶137

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No bga

¶138

To:

¶139

1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU

¶140

REP BY THE SECRETARY,

¶141

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI 9

¶142

2.THE COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ,

¶143

DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

¶144

GUINDY, CHENNAI 25

¶145

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

¶146

bga

¶147

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶148

Page No.8 of 9

¶149

W.P. No.35033 of 2013

¶150

W.P.No.35033 of 2013

¶151

20.12.2024

¶152

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶153

Page No.9 of 9

N.Kanniappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kanniappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.L.Ravikumar Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

K.Senthilkumaran, Vs The Director of Agriculture

K.Rajiv Kumar Vs The Commissioner

A.Raghupathy, Vs the Joint Registrar of

S.Velu, Vs the Joint Registrar of

M.Ramathal Vs the State of Tamilnadu