A retired corporation wireman challenged his 2006 regularization with effect from 2006 instead of the Labour Court award date of 1993, fifteen years later, after two earlier withdrawn writ petitions. The court held the petition belated and barred by unconditional withdrawal and dismissal.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
G.M.Gladwin
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner, Tuticorin City Municipal Corporation, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent corporation in E2.21489/89 dated 25/05/2006 (in so far as regularization the appointment of the petitioner as wiremen w.e.f.,25/05/2006 ) and the proceedings of the respondent corporation in E2/12947/2009 dated 02/03/2021 and quash the same, and further direct the respondent Corporation herein to regularize forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as Wireman in respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01/04/1993 i.e., as per the award passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in ID No.146/1995 dated 15/12/2003 and grant all monetary benefits and attendant benefits with effect from 01.04.1993.
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy For Respondent : Mr.N.Anandhakumar, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 25.05.2006, regularizing the service of the petitioner only with effect from 25.05.2006, though the petitioner claims that he ought to have been regularized from 01.04.1993, being the date on which the Labour Court had passed an award in his favour.
(a). Under the impugned order dated 25.05.2006, the petitioner has been regularized into service with effect from 25.05.2006.
(b). The petitioner did not choose to challenge the impugned order dated 25.05.2006 immediately thereafter.
(c). The petitioner, for the first time, approached this Court by filing a writ petition not challenging the impugned order, but only seeking for mandamus to rectify the date of regularization as directed by the Labour Court in its award passed in the petitioner's favour.
2/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
3/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1993 on merits and in accordance with
law.
order and he is continuing to work in service without challenging the same and has also retired from service for long number of years back.
4/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned regularization order dated 25.05.2006 and the petitioner also did not seek any liberty before this Court to challenge the impugned regularization order dated 25.05.2006. Despite having withdrawn the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner for mandamus in the year 2009, for reasons best known to the petitioner, he has chosen to file one more writ petition before this Court in the year 2019 in W.P. (MD).No.25417 of 2019 seeking for the very same relief.
5/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
not challenged the impugned regularization order at the earliest possible time
and having approached this Court through back door method, though the petitioner could have very well challenged the impugned regularization order dated 25.05.2006 immediately after coming to know about the same, the present writ petition filed in the year 2021 for a cause of action that arose on 25.05.2006, which is the date of the impugned regularization order is not maintainable that too when the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn the earlier writ petition filed by him unconditionally without this Court granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned regularization order dated 25.05.2006.
6/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.
30.10.2025
NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG
7/8
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
TSG
W.P.(MD)No.6205 of 2021
30.10.2025
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who accepted a 2006 regularization order without timely challenge and withdrew earlier writ petitions unconditionally, could seek regularization from 01.04.1993.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.M.Gladwin
The Commissioner, Tuticorin City Municipal Corporation
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
