Dismissed¶36

The State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Pandi

Madras HC27 Jan 2025CMP(MD)/779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 1169 days delay; Clause 15 Letters Patent; writ appeal rejected at SR stage; State of Tamil Nadu; Department of Health and Family Welfare; regularisation of services; Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai; M.Sivappa Full Bench W.P.No.23823 of 2023; W.A. No.840 of 2022; unexplained delay by Government Pleader; no prospect of success in appeal.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 1169 days in filing the writ appeal has not been properly explained — the 10 months taken by the Government Pleader to opine in favour of appealing (between 11.10.2017 and 05.11.2019) and the absence of any reason for nearly two years in preparing the appeal papers being unexplained — and there is no ground to condone it. ¶30

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Pandi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1169 days in filing the writ appeal against the order dated 01.12.2016 in W.P.(MD)No.18102 of 2013 ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

As an independent ground, the decision of the Coordinate Bench in W.A. No.840 of 2022 (which relied on the Full Bench decision in M.Sivappa and directed regularisation of similarly placed employees of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai) would squarely apply to the present case, so that even if the writ appeal were taken up on file the appellants may not have a chance of succeeding; on this ground also the delay was not condoned.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay refused — C.M.P.(MD)No.779 of 2022 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act sought condonation of 1169 days' delay in filing W.A.(MD)SR.No.359 of 2022 under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 01.12.2016 in W.P.(MD)No.18102 of 2013. Held: (i) the 10 months taken by the Special Government Pleader to opine that the case fit for appeal (11.10.2017) and the further period till vetting of the appeal papers (05.11.2019), with no reasons assigned for almost two years in preparing the papers, left the 1169-day delay wholly unexplained; (ii) independently, a Coordinate Bench in W.A. No.840 of 2022 (orders dated 09.09.2024), placing reliance on the Full Bench decision in M.Sivappa Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and four others [W.P.No.23823 of 2023, dated 26.02.2024], had dismissed a similar appeal with a direction to regularise the services of respondents serving in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, so the appellants had no prospect of success even if the appeal were taken on file. Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; connected writ appeal rejected at the SR stage; no order as to costs.

¶1

C.M.P.(MD) No.779 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.779 of 2022

¶9

¶10

W.A.(MD)SR.No.359 of 2022

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Represented by its Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Special Secretary cum Project Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Tamil Nadu Health System Project, Teynampet,

¶14

Chennai – 6.

¶15

3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Petitioners

-VsK.Pandi

... Respondent

Page 1 of 6

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

¶20

C.M.P.(MD) No.779 of 2022

¶21

PRAYER in C.M.P.(MD)No.779 of 2022: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 1169 days in filing the above Writ Appeal filed as against the order dated 01.12.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.18102 of 2013.

¶22

PRAYER in W.A.(MD)SR.No.359 of 2022: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 01.12.2016 in W.P.(MD)No.18102 of 2013.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.SRA.Ramachandaran Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

[Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.]

¶26

The reasons assigned by the appellant for the delay of 1169 days is that after the Writ Court has passed orders on 01.12.2016, the Special Government Pleader of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had opined that it is a fit case for filing Writ Appeal after about 10 months on 11.10.2017. Thereafter, it is stated that the

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

C.M.P.(MD) No.779 of 2022

¶30

appeal papers were made ready and was vetted by the Special Government Pleader on 05.11.2019. The inordinate delay of 10 months between 11.10.2017 and 05.11.2019, for the Government Pleader to give his opinion with regard to preferring an appeal has not been properly explained. Likewise, between 11.10.2017 to 05.11.2019, there is absolutely no reasons assigned by the appellants for almost two years of delay in preparing the appeal papers. In our considered view, the delay of 1169 days has not been properly explained and hence, we do not find any ground to condone the same.

¶31

2. This apart, we are also apprised of the fact that when the Government had preferred an appeal against similar orders passed in a Writ Petition, wherein the Writ Court had directed to regularise the services of similarly placed persons, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, through its orders dated 09.09.2024 in Writ Appeal No.840 of 2022, had placed reliance on a Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of M.Sivappa Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and four others [W.P.No.23823 of 2023, dated 26.02.2024], and had dismissed the Writ Appeal, with a consequential direction to regularise the services of the respondents therein who were all serving in the same Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. The

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

C.M.P.(MD) No.779 of 2022

¶35

decision passed in the aforesaid Writ Appeal, would squarely apply to the present case also and even if this Writ Appeal is taken up on file, the appellants may not have a chance of succeeding. On this ground also, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

¶36

3. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.A.(MD)SR.No.359 of 2022 is rejected at the SR stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

[M.S.R., J.] & [A.D.M.C., J.]

¶38

27.01.2025

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No MR

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

C.M.P.(MD) No.779 of 2022