C.Shanmugasundaram Vs the Commissioner

3.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents

¶58

Prayer in W.P.No.9756 of 2007: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners 1 to 29 herein.

¶59

W.P.No.30154 of 2008

¶60

1.C.Shanmugasundaram, S/o.Chinnasamy

¶61

2.A.Ramu, S/o.Annamalai

¶62

3.K.Askar Babu, S/o.Kalappan

¶63

4.A.Shanmugam, S/o.Appasamy

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/11

¶65

4/11

¶66

W.P.No.9756 of 2007 and W.P.No.30154 of 2008

5.V.Palani,

S/o.Veeram

6.Y.Ravi,

S/o.Yadhagiri

7.M.Kumar, S/o.Munirathinam

¶72

8.G.Raghavan, S/o.Guruvaiah

¶73

9.G.Thamilarasi, W/o.Govindaraju

¶74

10.M.Ravi, S/o.Murugan

¶75

11.S.Santhi, W/o.Selvam

¶76

12.M.Dhasaradan, S/o.Murugan

¶77

13.M.Arumugan, S/o.Nannu

¶78

14.M.Raja, S/o.Munirathinam

¶79

... Petitioners

¶80

(The 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are withdrawn in the Writ Petition vide Order dated 01.04.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009)

¶81

(The 8^th petitioner is withdrawn in the Writ Petition vide Order dated 23.07.2009 in M.P.No.2 of 2009)

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/11

¶83

5/11

¶84

W.P.No.9756 of 2007 and W.P.No.30154 of 2008

¶85

Vs.

¶86

1.The Commissioner, Ambur Municipality, Ambur, Vellore District – 635 802.

¶87

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶88

3.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶89

... Respondents

¶90

Prayer in W.P.No.30154 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 10.10.2008 on merit within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶91

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Vasudevan (In both W.Ps) For Respondents : (In both W.Ps) For R1 : No appearance For R2 and R3 : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate

¶92

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/11

¶93

6/11

¶94

W.P.No.9756 of 2007 and W.P.No.30154 of 2008

¶95

COMMON ORDER

¶96

Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate for the 2^nd and 3^rd

¶97

Respondents would submit that some of the Writ Petitioners have died and some of them were made permanent during the pendency of the present Writ Petitions.

¶98

It is noticed that these Writ Petitions are of the year 2007 and 2008.

¶99

The issue has now attained finality in terms of the decision of the Full

¶100

Bench of this Court in M.Sivappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Fort

¶101

St. George, Chennai and others , 2024 (2) CTC 1.

¶102

The law that has been summarized by the Full Bench of this Court is reproduced below:-

¶103

“36. Having considered the entire literature that is available in the form of various pronouncements of this Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find it difficult to accept the Judgment of the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Public Works Department and another Vs. S. John Charles and others , W.A.Nos.2875 & 2644 of 2018, etc., dated 16.08.2019, as one laying down the law to the effect that

¶104

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11

¶105

W.P.No.9756 of 2007 and W.P.No.30154 of 2008

¶106

the Government is free to appoint persons either in Parttime or on a Full-time Temporary basis to Permanent posts and oust them out at it whims and fancies and we conclude that such unbridled exercise of indiscretions by the State Government would amount to exploitation.

¶107

37. We are of the considered opinion that wherever the posts are permanent in nature and they come within 86 categories of posts which form the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, Temporary or Part-time employment should be avoided and those persons, who have been appointed to such posts and who have completed 10 years of service as on 28.2.2006 would be entitled to Regularisation de hors the nomenclature that is given to the appointment.

¶108

38. In fine, we hold-

¶109

(a)If it shown that the appointment is made to anyone of the 86 categories of posts enumerated in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service immaterial of the fact that whether such appointment is part-time or full-time, the Employee would be entitled to the benefit of Regularisation de hors G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 27.6.2013.

¶110

(b)If it is shown that the nature of employment is temporary and the requirement will cease to exist after a particular time, like those appointments that are made under various Welfare schemes, it will then be open to the Government to engage Temporary Employees or Part-time employees.

¶111

39. We conclude that the Judgments in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Public Works Department and another Vs. S. John Charles and others , W.A.Nos.2875 & 2644 of 2018, etc., dated 16.8.2019 and State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and others Vs. K.Rajakrishnan , W.A.(MD)

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/11

¶113

W.P.No.9756 of 2007 and W.P.No.30154 of 2008

¶114

No.836 & 337 of 2014, dated 5.7.2023 cannot be taken as laying down an inflexible rule of law that any part-time or Temporary Employee, who has completed 10 years of service on 28.2.2006 will not be entitled to Regularisation. The benefit of Regularisation will depend on the nature of the job and the fact that whether the post falls within any one of the 86 categories mentioned in the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service.

¶115

40. Having answered the Reference as above, we direct the Registry to list the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge as per the roster for disposal in accordance with the opinion expressed above.”

¶116

Under these circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed by

¶117

directing the Respondents, to pass suitable orders in terms of the above view of

¶118

the Full Bench of this Court in the above case, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after due notice to the respective

¶119

writ petitioners. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶120

24.03.2025

¶121

Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶122

arb

¶123