The Commissioner Vs G.Raju — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Commissioner Vs G.Raju — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal W.A.(MD)No.884 of 2020 dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.4851 of 2020 closed; the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.06.2017 in W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2017 (granting the writ petitioner parity-based regularization in terms of G.O.(Ms)No.101 dated 30.04.1997) stands undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner — a Sanitary Worker appointed on 03.07.1998 on consolidated pay and regularized only in 2006 — can be denied the same relief as his identically placed co-workers (regularization in terms of G.O.(Ms)No.101 dated 30.04.1997 upon completion of three years of service) on the ground that he asserted his claim later than they did. +2 more

Court's answer

Although the Court may have its own take on the construction of clause 6 of G.O.(Ms)No.101, Article 14 of the Constitution of India 'will definitely kick in': denial of relief to the writ petitioner merely because he entered the arena later than his identically placed co-workers is impermissible; he must receive the same treatment.

Ratio / Principle

Since the writ petitioner was regularized in the year 2006, his services must have been satisfactory during 1998 to 2001 (the three-year period); the nature of the work is perennial and he is working in the last grade — supporting grant of the parity relief.

Key takeaways

Observation (not made the basis of the disposition): clause 6 of G.O.(Ms)No.101 contemplates the employer assessing the appointee's service record and the government passing the order on placement in the time scale of pay; admittedly the government had passed no such order, and the employee's case ought ordinarily to have been relegated to the government — but relief was granted on Article 14 parity instead.obiter¶6
Interference with the learned Single Judge's order is not warranted; the writ appeal is dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench (Div. Bench: G.R. Swaminathan & R. Kalaimathi, JJ., judgment authored by Swaminathan, J.; 08.12.2025) dismisses the Paramakudi Municipality's intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 19.06.2017 allowing W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2017. The writ petitioner, a Sanitary Worker appointed on 03.07.1998 on consolidated pay and regularized only by proceedings dated 16.03.2006, sought regularization effective from completion of three years of service under G.O.(Ms)No.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.04.1997; his request was rejected on 10.11.2014. Although clause 6 of the G.O. contemplates assessment by the employer and a consequential government order — admittedly never passed, and the Court observed the claim ought ordinarily to have been relegated to the government — relief was anchored on Article 14 parity: 14 of the 18 co-workers covered by the 16.03.2006 proceedings had already obtained identical relief pursuant to the Division Bench judgment dated 08.07.2013 in W.A.(MD)Nos.461 of 2013 etc batch, implemented by proceedings Na.Ka.No.141/20-11/H1 dated 22.11.2013. Late assertion of the claim held no bar; the work is perennial and the post is last grade. The Court expressly refrained from pronouncing its own construction of clause 6.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2017 filed by the first respondent (G.Raju), which had challenged the employer's rejection dated 10.11.2014 of his claim for regularization with effect from completion of three years of service on consolidated pay in terms of G.O.(Ms)No.101 dated 30.04.1997.¶2
Learned Single Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court · 19.06.2017
Prior proceeding
The first respondent / writ petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Worker in Paramakudi Municipality on 03.07.1998 on consolidated pay; his services were regularized vide order dated 16.03.2006.¶3
Prior proceeding
After identically placed co-workers succeeded, the writ petitioner submitted a representation seeking regularization from the date of completion of three years of service on consolidated pay; it was rejected by the employer vide order dated 10.11.2014.¶3
Prior proceeding
Challenging the rejection dated 10.11.2014, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.5301 of 2017, which the learned Single Judge allowed vide order dated 19.06.2017; the employer then filed this writ appeal.¶3
Prior proceeding
Identically placed employees working in Paramakudi Municipality filed W.P.(MD)Nos.2183 to 2196 of 2011, which the learned Single Judge allowed.¶6
Prior proceeding
The Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality filed W.A.(MD)Nos.461 of 2013 etc batch against those orders; the writ appeals were disposed of vide judgment dated 08.07.2013, modifying the Single Judge's orders with a direction to regularize services on completion of three years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 30.04.1997 with arrears of pay, after obtaining approval from the appropriate authority within three months.¶6
Prior proceeding
Per learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Division Bench order of 08.07.2013 was implemented and identically placed employees were granted relief by proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.141/20-11/H1 dated 22.11.2013.¶7
Prior proceeding
The Commissioner's proceedings dated 16.03.2006 (enclosed at pages 8-9 of the typed set) pertained to as many as 18 Sanitary Workers, out of whom 14 filed writ petitions and got relief.¶8
Prior proceeding
The Commissioner's proceedings dated 16.03.2006 relied upon for the parity argument were identified as enclosed at pages 8 and 9 of the typed set of papers.¶8