Part-time watchmen denied regularization by the Single Judge appealed. Following the Full Bench decision in M.Sivappa, the Division Bench quashed the writ court order, directed regularisation of service and pay-scale fixation from 28.02.2006 without salary arrears.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
After we had pronounced final orders on 18.09.2025, the Writ
Appeals have been listed today at the instance of the appellants herein under the caption “For being mentioned”.
2.We find that an error had crept in paragraph No.5 of our final order by inadvertence.
3.Accordingly, paragraph No.5 of our earlier order passed in W.A.No.2538 and 2543 of 2022 dated 18.09.2025 shall stand substituted
as follows:
“…
5.Accordingly, the order impugned in W.P.No.6235 and 6237 of 2014 stands quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders, bringing the appellants’ service into regular service and fix their pay scale accordingly, with effect from the date on which they have completed 10 years of service, with all attendant benefits accruing out of the regularisation. However, the
Page 1 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
appellants will
M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
kas
not be entitled for the arrears of their salaries, on such refixation of their pay scales. Such orders shall be passed, at least within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
3.All other findings and observations made in our earlier final order
dated 18.09.2025 shall remain unaltered.
4.Registry is directed to incorporate the above correction and issue a
fresh order copy to the parties.
[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J]
27.11.2025
kas
Page 2 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022 W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
Page 3 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
U.Murugesan ... Appellant in W.A.No.2538 of 2022
A.Muthu ...Appellant in W.A.No.2543 of 2022
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. Secretary to the Government, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner of Labour, Chennai-600 006 ... Respondents in both W.As
PRAYER in W.A.No.2538 of 2022: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 20.06.2022 in W.P.No.6237 of 2014 passed by this Court.
Page 4 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022 PRAYER in W.A.No.2543 of 2022: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 20.06.2022 in W.P.No.6235 of 2014 passed by this Court.
In both W.As
For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.UM.Ravichandran Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
Before the Writ Court, the appellants herein had claimed that they were continuously engaged as daily wage employees for more than ten years as on 01.01.2006 and therefore, had sought for the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, for regularization of their services. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.06.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.6235 of 2014 and 6237 of 2014 had rejected their claim, which order is assailed in the present Writ Appeals.
Page 5 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
3.It is not in dispute that the post of watchmen, in which the appellants were engaged on part-time basis, finds place in Sl.No.11 of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules. The fact that the appellants herein were employed as part-time watchmen for more than ten years as on 01.01.2006, is also not under dispute. As such, they would be entitled for the benefit of
Page 6 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022 the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in M.Sivapa's case (supra) .
4.Since the learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench, which was pronounced after the orders passed in the Writ Petition, we do not intend to go into the merits of the findings therein. However, in view of M.Sivapa's decision, the order passed in the Writ Petition cannot be legally sustained.
Page 7 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
18.09.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Anu
To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner of Labour, Chennai-600 006
M.S.RAMESH, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Anu
Page 8 of 9
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
W.A.Nos.2538 and 2543 of 2022
18.09.2025
Page 9 of 9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether part-time daily wage watchmen with over ten years of service as on 01.01.2006 are entitled to regularization under the Full Bench decision in M.Sivappa.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Sivappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and othersFollowed¶3
[2024 (2) CTC 1]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma DeviReferred¶2
[2006 (3) LLN 78 (SC)]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
U.Murugesan
A.Muthu
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. Secretary to the Government, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, Chennai-600 009
The Commissioner of Labour, Chennai-600 006
M.S.RAMESH
R.SAKTHIVEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
