G.Gajalakshmi v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC15 Dec 2025WA(MD)/897/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of long-serving Data Entry Operators; Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation; Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 Table No.5 S.No.3; Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules; scheme posts; Uma Devi illegal vs irregular appointment distinction; constitutional employer; misuse of temporary employment; G.O(D)No.331 dated 02.09.2014; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; regularisation directed with effect from 13.04.2023.

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals allowed; the learned single Judge's common order dated 06.08.2019 set aside; respondents directed to regularise the appellants' services as Data Entry Operators with effect from 13.04.2023; no costs. ¶114

G.Gajalakshmi Vs The Secretary to the Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶114

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned single Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petitions (Government's rejection of regularisation) warrant interference. +1 more

¶74

Court's answer

The sole ground for rejecting regularisation — that the Data Entry Operator post was not included in the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules or other special rules — no longer survives, as the post now figures as S.No.3 in Table No.5 under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

¶92

Ratio / Principle

Absence of specific sanction of the Data Entry Operator post for Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation cannot come in the way of regularisation.

¶92

Key takeaways

While a person appointed under a scheme post cannot claim regularisation, where the services of the appointees have been utilised for a period close to a quarter of a century, such appointments cannot be characterised as scheme posts.ratio¶107-108
Given the perennial nature of Data Entry Operator work in the digital age and the appellants' service of more than 15 years, relaxation of the service rules must necessarily be provided even if the petitioners do not meet the requirements set out therein.ratio¶112-113

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (G.R.Swaminathan and R.Kalaimathi, JJ.; judgment by G.R.Swaminathan J.) allowed W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019 and set aside the common order dated 06.08.2019 of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P(MD)Nos.15295 and 16131 of 2014. The appellants, appointed as Data Entry Operators in Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation between 2001 and 2009 (service ranging from 16 to 24 years), had their regularisation proposal rejected by the Government vide G.O(D)No.331 dated 02.09.2014 solely on the ground that the post was absent from the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules. Holding that the post now figures as S.No.3 in Table No.5 under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, that absence of specific sanction for the Corporation cannot obstruct regularisation, and that long-utilised services (close to a quarter century) cannot be characterised as scheme posts, the Court — relying on Shirpal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) — directed regularisation of the appellants' services with effect from 13.04.2023.

¶1

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.A(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶8

W.A(MD)No.897 of 2019:

¶9

1.G.Gajalakshmi

¶10

2.G.Sahayasantha Kumari

3.J.Ramkumar

4.B.Rajasekar

5.M.Murali

6.J.Saranya

7.G.Jayalakshmi

8.T.Veeramani

9.A.Sulochana

10.R.Devi

11.R.Gowri

12.J.Dayana Mary

13.J.Kavitha

1/13

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

¶24

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶25

14.G.Balasubramanian

¶26

... Appellants / Petitioners

¶27

Vs.

¶28

1.The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, (M.C.5) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶29

2.The State represented by The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai – 9.

¶30

3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,

¶31

Ezhilagam Annex, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

¶32

4.Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Represented by The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli.

¶33

... Respondents / Respondents

¶34

L.Muthukumar (Died)

¶35

... Respondent

¶36

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.08.2019 passed in W.P(MD)No.15295 of 2014 on the file of this Court and allow this Writ Appeal.

¶37

2/13

¶38

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

¶39

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶40

For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj for M/s.Veera Associates

¶41

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶42

Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram Standing Counsel for R.B.Law Associates for R.4

¶43

W.A(MD)No.898 of 2019:

¶44

1.W.B.Jebamani

¶45

2.N.Kalaiselvi

¶46

3.A.Sathish Kumar

¶47

... Appellants / Petitioners

¶48

Vs.

¶49

1.The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, (M.C.5) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶50

2.The State represented by

¶51

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai – 9.

¶52

3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,

¶53

Ezhilagam Annex, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.

¶54

3/13

¶55

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

¶56

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶57

4.Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Represented by The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli.

¶58

... Respondents / Respondents

¶59

5.B.Murugesan ... Respondent /

¶60

1^st Petitioner

¶61

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.08.2019 passed in W.P(MD)No.16131 of 2014 on the file of this Court and allow this Writ Appeal.

¶62

For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj for M/s.Veera Associates

¶63

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶64

Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram Standing Counsel for R.B.Law Associates for R.4

¶65

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶66

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶67

Heard both sides.

¶68

2.These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated

¶69

06.08.2019 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P(MD)Nos.

¶70

15295 of 2014 and 16131 of 2014 filed by the appellants herein. The 4/13

¶71

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

¶72

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶73

appellants herein were appointed as Data Entry Operators in Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation on various dates in the years 2001-2009. Proposal was submitted by the Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation for regularising their services in the year 2014. The said proposal was rejected by the Government vide G.O(D)No.331 dated 02.09.2014. Challenging the same, the aforementioned writ petitions were filed.

¶74

3.The learned single Judge sustained the rejection order passed by the Government and dismissed the writ petitions. The question that calls for consideration is whether the order of the learned single Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petitions warrant interference.

¶75

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants herein had served the corporation continuously for long number of years and that therefore their services will have to be regularised. He placed heavy reliance on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 (Dharam Singh & Others vs State of U.P & another) . He also pointed out that the post of the Data Entry Operator has been recognised by the

¶76

5/13

¶77

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

¶78

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶79

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 which came into force on 13.14.2023.

¶80

5.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Government submitted that even though Tamil Nadu Act 09 of 1999 has recognised the post of Data Entry Operator, the said post has not been sanctioned for Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation. He pointed out that the writ petitioners were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that they did not come through the proper selection process. He also added that the learned single Judge had rightly non-suited the appellants and that interference with the said well considered decision is not called for.

¶81

6.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation submitted that the Corporation is not the authority competent to grant relief in such cases and that they have to necessarily sail with the Government.

¶82

7.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

¶83

6/13

¶84

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

¶85

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶86

8.It is conceded at the very outset that, even as on date, the appellants are very much serving in Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation as Data Entry Operators. Even the person who was appointed last had put in 16 years of service. The senior most among the appellants had put in 24 years of service.

¶87

9.The only reason for rejecting the proposal submitted by the Commissioner of the Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation was that the post of Data Entry Operator was not included in the Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules or any other special rules for Municipal Corporation services. In that view of the matter, the Government took the stand that there was no possibility of regularising the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Data Entry Operators. The absence of service rules alone was cited as the sole ground for rejection. This ground may no longer be available.

¶88

10.The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 has superseded all the relevant laws pertaining to various Municipal Corporations, including Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation. The statute has created an IT wing for the local bodies. The post of Data Entry Operator

¶89

7/13

¶90

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

¶91

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶92

is figuring as S.No.3 in Table No.5. Thus, the sole ground of rejection no longer survives. It is true that this post has not been specifically sanctioned for Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation. But absence of such sanction cannot come in the way. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 (Shirpal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad) held as follows :

¶93

“14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment....

¶94

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade... Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,

¶95

8/13

¶96

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

¶97

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶98

particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶99

“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ………

¶100

25.It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While

¶101

9/13

¶102

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

¶103

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶104

the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.”

¶105

11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2025

¶106

SCC OnLine SC 1735 (Dharam Singh & Others vs State of U.P & another) has emphasised that the State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect the reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long term extraction of a regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶107

12.As the learned Special Government Pleader points out, a person

¶108

who was appointed under a scheme post cannot claim regularisation. However, where the services of the appointees have been utilised for a period close to a quarter of a century, such appointments cannot be

¶109

10/13

¶110

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

¶111

W.A.(MD)Nos.897 & 898 of 2019

¶112

characterised as scheme posts. We have now entered the digital age. Therefore, the services of the petitioners would be perennially required. The petitioners are engaged not only in uploading legacy records but also engaged in uploading the current data on a continuous basis. Therefore, even if the petitioners do not meet the requirements set out in

¶113

the service rules, still relaxation will have to be necessarily provided for them. The rules came into force on 13.04.2023. As the appellants have been working for more than 15 years, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and direct the respondents to regularise the service of the appellants with effect from 13.04.2023.

¶114

13.These Writ Appeals are allowed on these terms. No costs.

¶115

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶116

¶117