Dismissed¶49

A.Munusamy v. Secretary to Government for Women

Madras HC4 Sept 2025REV.APPL/113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review jurisdiction; apparent error standard; Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 CPC; new factual plea and fresh evidence cannot be entertained in review; regularization denied to daily rate wage employees of Puducherry Women's Commission disengaged from March 2011; claim for salary from March 2011 based on RTI file noting; direction to approach proper forum; review of common Division Bench order dated 16.06.2023 in W.A.Nos.69 to 72 and 74 of 2019; review application dismissed, no order as to costs, C.M.P.No.13601 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

No apparent error could be found in the impugned Division Bench order; therefore the review application is liable to be rejected. ¶43

A.Munusamy Vs Secretary to Government for Women — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the review application against the Division Bench order dated 16.06.2023 in W.A.No.72 of 2019 discloses any apparent error warranting entertainment in the review jurisdiction. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

No apparent error could be found in the impugned Division Bench order; therefore the review application is liable to be rejected.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Having not pressed the regularization plea, the applicants cannot claim salary from March, 2011, when the Division Bench had already taken note of the second respondent Commission's stand that the daily rate wage employees were disengaged from the year 2011 onwards.

¶42

Key takeaways

The claim of continued working without salary from 2011 is a new factor brought before the Court without any evidence, and even if evidence is produced, it cannot be gone into at the review stage.ratio¶48
The review applicant may agitate the issue by letting evidence before the proper forum in the manner known to law, but the present review application cannot be entertained for that purpose.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Division Bench (order by R. Suresh Kumar, J.; Bench comprising R. Suresh Kumar and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.), dismissed a review application under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 CPC seeking review of the common Division Bench order dated 16.06.2023 in W.A.Nos.69 to 72 and 74 of 2019, by which the writ appeals of the Government of UT of Puducherry were allowed and the Writ Court's order granting regularization to daily rate wage/consolidated pay workers of the Puducherry Women's Commission was set aside, the employees having been disengaged at least from March, 2011. In review, the applicant did not press regularization but sought salary from March, 2011 onwards, relying on an RTI-obtained file noting of continued work without salary. Held: (i) in the review jurisdiction, unless apparent error is found, the application will not be entertained, and no apparent error existed in the impugned order; (ii) the salary claim was a new factor brought without evidence and could not be gone into at the review stage; (iii) the applicant remained free to agitate the issue with evidence before the proper forum. Review application dismissed with no order as to costs; C.M.P.No.13601 of 2025 closed.

¶1

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

¶7

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025 against W.A.No.72 of 2019

A.Munusamy

.. Applicant

Vs.

Secretary to Government for Women and Child Welfare Department, Puducherry.

¶12

Chairperson Puducherry Women's Commission Puducherry.

¶13

E.Vengadesan

¶14

S.Velumurugan

¶15

D.Soupramananien

¶16

C.Ramamurthy

¶17

P.Vengadabady

¶18

P.Sattivelane

¶19

K.Rajeswary 10. H.Arulmozhi

¶20

.. Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 16.06.2023 passed in W.A.No.72 of 2019.

¶22

For the Applicant : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu for Ms.S.Meenakshi For the Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar Addl. Government Pleader (P) for R1 and R2

¶23

Page 1 of 7

¶24

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

¶25

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This review application has been filed seeking to review the

¶28

order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.72 of 2019 by the order dated 16.06.2023.

¶29

In fact, it was a common order passed in a number of writ appeals, that is W.A.Nos.69 to 72 and 74 of 2019. Those appeals were filed against a common order passed by the Writ Court in a batch of writ petitions.

¶30

The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court seeking the benefit of regularization from the second respondent Commission, where, they claim to have been worked on consolidated pay. Those writ petitions were allowed, against which, the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry has filed the said writ appeals.

¶31

While deciding the batch of writ appeals through the impugned order, the Division Bench has considered the factual matrix, as well as the legal position. The claim that has been made by the employees, who claim to have been worked under the second respondent Commission on daily rate wage basis, had been denied, as, at least from March, 2011, according to the affidavit

¶32

Page 2 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025

¶35

filed before the Court, they had been disengaged.

¶36

Based on this factual matrix and also considering the legal position by citing various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that the employees were not entitled to seek any regularization and therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court, having been set aside, the writ appeals were allowed through the order dated 16.06.2023.

¶37

As against the said order passed by the Division Bench, though this review application has been filed seeking to review the order, Mr.P.G.Thiyagu , learned counsel appearing for the review applicant would submit that, leave alone the plea made by them for getting regularization, at least from the year 2011, that is March, 2011, till date, the review applicant and the similarly placed persons could be considered for paying the salary.

¶38

In this context, it is claimed by the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant that, as per the file noting recorded by the second respondent Commission, which has been received by way of RTI information, still, they have been continuously working without any salary from March, 2011.

¶39

Page 3 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025

¶42

We are afraid to note these kinds of pleas, that too in a review application. The reason being that, once the plea raised by them seeking regularization since has been turned down by the orders of the Division Bench, which is sought to be reviewed herein, the stand of the review applicant, as projected by the learned counsel, that, insofar as the plea raised by them for regularization is concerned, they are not pressing it and they, in fact, cannot press for it, how could they make a claim to get salary from March, 2011, when the Division Bench has already taken note of the stand taken by the second respondent Commission that these daily rate wage employees have been disengaged from the year 2011 onwards.

¶43

In the review jurisdiction, unless apparent error is found while passing the order sought to be reviewed, the Court would not entertain such application. Here, in the case in hand, no such apparent error could be found out from the orders passed by the Division Bench, which is sought to be reviewed. Therefore, this review application, in fact, is liable to be rejected.

¶44

If at all the review applicant is having confidence that he could establish his case by letting evidences to state that, from the year 2011, continuously, he has been working in the second

¶45

Page 4 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025

¶48

respondent Commission without getting salary, which is a new factor that has been surprisingly brought before this Court without any evidence and even if any evidence is produced before this Court, at this stage, it cannot be gone into. Therefore, if at all the review applicant wants to establish his case by letting evidences, he could agitate the issue in the manner known to law by approaching the proper Forum, but, the present review application, at no stretch of imagination, could be entertained for the said reasons projected by the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant.

¶49

Hence, the present review application is liable to be rejected, accordingly, the review application is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13601 of 2025 is closed.

¶50

(R.S.K., J.) (K.G.T., J) 04.09.2025

¶51

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶52

drm

¶53

Page 5 of 7

¶54

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

¶55

Rev.Appl.No.113 of 2025