M.Selvakumar, S/O.Murugesan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC20 Aug 2025WP(MD)/20612/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of daily-wage service — Highways and Rural Works Department, Tamil Nadu — W.P.(MD) No.20612 of 2017 — writ of certiorarified mandamus — impugned Circular No.962/NIR(l)/2014 dated 13.05.2014 — disputed questions of fact on affidavit — Article 226 — no roving enquiry in writ jurisdiction — Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298 applied — delay precludes relegation to evidence-recording forum — no proof of continued service produced — writ petition dismissed, no costs — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete — pronounced 20.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶43-44

M.Selvakumar, S/O.Murugesan Vs the Secretary to… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶43-44

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Circular/Memorandum No.962/NIR(l)/2014 dated 13.05.2014 should be quashed and the Petitioner's daily-wage service in the Highways Department regularized from the date of completion of 10 years with attendant monetary benefits. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Petitioner's claim of continued service was unsubstantiated: although he represented on 19.12.2024 that he was still in service, no proof in support of that claim was produced.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Writ jurisdiction is founded on affidavits filed by the parties, and a decision can be rendered only on the basis of admitted facts.

¶36

Key takeaways

Where facts are in dispute, the writ court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry.ratio¶36
Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Smt. Sukamani Das, disputes of fact such as this ought, even at the admission stage, to be pursued before a forum competent to record evidence.ratio¶42
Relegating the Petitioner to an evidence-recording forum at this stage was impermissible in view of the long delay in the proceedings; accordingly the writ petition was dismissed rather than remitted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete): Writ petition by a daily-wages claimant in the Highways and Rural Works Department seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash Circular No.962/NIR(l)/2014 dated 13.05.2014 (passed in compliance with earlier directions in W.P.(MD) No. 99 of 2014) and to regularize his service from the date of completion of 10 years with attendant benefits — DISMISSED. Held: writ jurisdiction is founded on affidavits, and a decision can be rendered only on the basis of admitted facts; where facts are in dispute — here, the respondents' stand that the petitioner was engaged only between January 1992 and July 2007 and never worked thereafter — the writ court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry (applying Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Smt. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298, that a petition under Article 226 is not a proper remedy involving disputed questions of fact). Ordinarily such matters should be pursued before a forum competent to record evidence, but relegation at this belated stage was impermissible owing to the long delay; the petitioner had also produced no proof of continued service despite representing so on 19.12.2024. Dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20612 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved On : 29.07.2025

¶4

Pronounced On : 20.08.2025

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.P. (MD) No.20612 of 2017

¶8

M.Selvakumar, S/o. Murugesan, Door No.71/19, Middle Street, Mathichiyam, Madurai-625 020. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Chief Engineer/Chief Director, Highways and Rural Works Department, Gunidy, Chennai.

¶11

3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Alagarkovil Road, Madurai-625 002. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER in W.P.:

¶13

To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd Respondent

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.20612 of 2017

¶17

in Circular No.962/NIR(l)/2014 dated 13.05.2014 and Quash the same in respect services of the Petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years and to grant all attended and monetary benefits on such regularization and to pass any other further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

¶18

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar, Advocate for Mr.V.Muthu Kamatchi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The Petitioner, claiming to have served in the Highways Department on daily wages from 01.01.1992 until the date of swearing the affidavit on 06.11.2017, seeks to challenge the memorandum dated 13.05.2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent, and consequently prays for regularization of his service from the date of completion of 10 years, along with all attendant benefits.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.20612 of 2017

¶26

When the writ petition was listed on 10.11.2017, the respondents entered appearance and undertook to file a counter. Accordingly, on behalf of the 3^rd Respondent, a counter affidavit dated 21.12.2017 was filed. The petitioner, however, has not chosen to file any reply thereto. Although the matter was taken up on 19.12.2024, it was represented on behalf of the petitioner that he was in service even on that date; nevertheless, no proof in support of the said claim has been produced till date.

¶27

The impugned order dated 13.05.2014, challenged by the Petitioner, was passed pursuant to W.P.(MD) No. 99 of 2014 dated 06.01.2014, filed by the Petitioner. In that writ petition, the Respondents were directed to consider the Petitioner’s claim, and in compliance with the said direction, the 2^nd Respondent passed the following order:

¶28

“murhiz vz;.74> gzpahsh; (k) eph;thfr; rPh;jpUj;jj; Jiw ehs;: 27.06.2013-d;gb kw;Wk; cr;r ePjpkd;w tof;F C.A.No.2726-2729/2014-y; 21.02.2014 md;W mspf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;gpd;gbAk; jhq;fs; Ntiy tha;g;gfk; %yk; njhpT nra;ag;gltpy;iy kw;Wk; xg;gspg;G nra;ag;gl;l gzpaplj;jpy; jpdf;$ypahf gzpGhpatpy;iy vd;gjd; Nghpy; gzp tud; Kiw nra;tjw;F jFjpg; ngwtpy;iy vd ghh;it 3-y; fhZk; muR fbjj;jpd;gb njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.20612 of 2017

¶32

In support of the said contention, paragraphs 10 and 15 of the

¶33

counter affidavit state as follows:

¶34

“10. The Petitioner had been engaged only between January 1992 and July 2007 and not thereafter. The Petitioner is not working as such till date, as alleged. No Daily Wage Worker is appointed by any of the Officials named by the need and necessity of the locality.

¶35

The petitioner had kept slept over for more than 10 years from 1992 to 2007 and had not done anything. The petitioners, after waking up from his slumber sleep, had filed this writ petition, without any cause of action. Thus, the every allegation that he is struggling hard till this date to get their services regularized for the past 10 years is a blatant lie. It is reiterated that the petitioner has knowingly sworn to an affidavit with false facts / contentions for which he is liable for perjury.”

¶36

It is pertinent to note that writ jurisdiction is founded on affidavits filed by the parties, and a decision can be rendered only on the basis of admitted facts. Where the facts are in dispute, the writ court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Smt. Sukamani Das, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 298 , observed as follows:

¶37

“These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.20612 of 2017

¶41

a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein.”

¶42

It is for this very reason that, even at the stage of admission, it is advised to pursue such matters before a forum competent to record evidence on disputed facts. However, at this stage, such a course is impermissible in view of the long delay involved in these proceedings.

¶43