Dismissed¶37

V. Mayandi v. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WP(MD)/6388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of daily-wages Driver, Tamil Nadu Forest Department; ten years' service condition under G.O.(Ms).No.22 dated 28.02.2006; petitioner removed from service 31.03.2013; challenge to GO (2D) No.12 dated 20.03.2020; certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; writ petition dismissed, no costs; V.Mayandi v. Government of Tamil Nadu; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose, J.; 14.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no costs; request for regularization held rightly rejected. ¶37

V. Mayandi Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2020

V.Mayandi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.Geoge, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Buildings, Chennai-600 015.

¶12

3.The Conservator of Forest, Race Course Road, Madurai District.

¶13

4.The District Forest Officer, Race Course Road, Madurai District.

¶14

5.The Forest Range Officer, Usilampatti Range Office, Usilampatti, Madurai.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2020

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in GO (2D) No.12 dated 20.03.2020 and quash and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Driver from the date of his initial appointment on 10.04.2004 with consequential service and monetary benefits and to absorb him in regular establishment.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization.

¶23

The petitioner claims that he is working as a Driver in the Forest Department on daily wages. According to him, he is entitled to be regularized in service as per G.O.(Ms).No.22, dated 28.02.2006.

¶24

According to the petitioner, he has rendered ten years of service and hence, G.O.(Ms).No.22, dated 28.02.2006, applies to him and he ought to have been regularized.

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2020

¶28

However, according to the respondents, as seen from the counter filed before this Court, the petitioner had never completed ten years of service as on the date of G.O.(Ms).No.22, dated 28.02.2006. Therefore, he is not entitled for regularization. According to the respondents, the petitioner was employed on daily wages only in the year 2004 and since he did not complete ten years of service as on 28.02.2006, he was not regularized in service. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner's request has been rightly rejected under the impugned order.

¶29

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶30

respondents would submit that the petitioner was removed from service as early as on 31.03.2013 itself.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to get instructions as to whether the petitioner is still in service or not. However, since the respondents have produced an affidavit through their counter filed before this Court to show that the petitioner was removed from service as early as on 31.03.2013 itself, the submission made by the respondents has to be accepted.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2020

¶35

Since the petitioner is no longer in service of the respondents and since the petitioner never completed ten years of service as on the date of G.O. (Ms).No.22, dated 28.02.2006, this Court is of the considered view that the request of the petitioner for regularization has been rightly rejected under the impugned order.

¶36