Dismissed¶59

S.Muthu v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC27 Mar 2026REV.APLC(MD)/272/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Madurai Bench review application dismissed; error apparent on face of record; part-time sweepers; special time scale of pay; G.O(Ms)No.79 Youth Welfare and Sports Development dated 19.12.2012; NCC Directorate; regularization of part-time employees; State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lala AIR 2011 SC 1193; Secretary to Government v. R.Govindasamy; W.A(MD)No.1155-1159 of 2014; W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018; W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013; consolidated pay; equal pay for equal work.

What did the court decide?

There was a clear distinction between the facts of W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013 (where it was not the respondents' case that the petitioners were part-time employees) and W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018 (where the writ petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers); the learned Single Judge was under the impression that the two cases were identical.

S.Muthu Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by this Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.1357 of 2019 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 114 CPC.

¶32

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

On the sole ground of the factual distinction between the two writ petitions, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018 had to be set aside.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.1155 to 1159 of 2014 (judgment dated 28.01.2016) had implicitly approved G.O(Ms)No.79 dated 19.12.2012 by allowing the appeals placing reliance on that Government Order.ratio¶58
Since the Division Bench had allowed the earlier appeals by placing reliance on G.O(Ms)No.79 dated 19.12.2012, the learned Single Judge could not have quashed the same; that is why the writ appeal was allowed, and there is no error in the order dated 22.09.2025 sought to be reviewed.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Application (Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 CPC) by S.Muthu and M.Mariappan, part-time sweepers absorbed in special time scale of pay under G.O(Ms)No.79 Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department dated 19.12.2012, seeking review of the Division Bench order dated 22.09.2025 allowing W.A(MD)No.1357 of 2019 (which had set aside the Single Judge's order dated 26.03.2019 in W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018 quashing the G.O.). Held: (i) the Single Judge erred in treating W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018 as identical to W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013, whose Paragraph 22 recorded that the petitioners therein were not part-time employees, whereas the present writ petitioners were part-time sweepers; on this sole ground the Single Judge's order had to be set aside; (ii) the Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.1155 to 1159 of 2014 (28.01.2016), applying clauses (iv) and (v) of State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lala (AIR 2011 SC 1193) as summarised in Secretary to Government v. R.Govindasamy, had implicitly approved G.O(Ms)No.79 dated 19.12.2012 absorbing the part-time sweepers into regular time scale; hence the Single Judge could not have quashed the G.O. No error apparent on the face of the record; Review Application dismissed, no costs.

¶1

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶7

REV.APLC(MD)No.272 of 2025 in

¶8

W.A(MD)No.1357 of 2019

¶9

1.S.Muthu 2.M.Mariappan

... Petitioners /

Respondents

1.The State represented by The Secretary, Youth Welfare and Sports Development (YW) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶14

2.The Director, Directorate of National Cadet Corps For Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry and Andaman Nichobar, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶15

3.The Group Commissioner, NCC Group Head Quarters, No. 86/2, P.T Rajan Road, Madurai - 14.

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶19

4.The Group Commander, NCC Group Head Quarters, Trichy - 1.

¶20

... Respondents / Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order made in W.A(MD)No.1357 of 2019 dated 22.01.2025.

¶22

For Petitioners : Ms.M.Devishreenachiyar

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

2.This application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by us allowing W.A(MD)Nos.1357 of 2019. The said writ appeal was filed by the Government questioning the order dated 26.03.2019 in W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018. The said writ petition was filed by the review applicants. The review applicants had questioned the validity of G.O(Ms)No.79 Youth Welfare and Sports Department dated 19.12.2012

¶28

2/9

¶29

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

¶30

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶31

and for consequential relief of fixing them in regular time scale of pay. The writ petitioners were aggrieved by the fixation of a special time scale of pay. The writ petitioners had been appointed as part-time sweepers.

¶32

3.The learned counsel for the review applicants submitted that the order passed by us suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and hence it deserves to be reviewed. Two facts need to be noted. The learned Single Judge had extracted the order dated 19.09.2014 made in W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013 and allowed the writ petition filed by the applicants. Copy of the said order has been made available and in Paragraph 22 of the order, the learned single Judge had stated as follows: “It is not the case of the respondents either in the G.O or in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are appointed as part time employees.” In the case on hand, the writ petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers. Thus, there was a clear distinction between the facts obtaining in W.P(MD)No.7884 of 2013 and the one obtaining in W.P(MD)No.2470 of 2018 filed by the review applicants. The learned Single Judge was under the impression that the two cases were identical. On this sole ground, the order passed by the learned single Judge had to be set aside.

¶33

3/9

¶34

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

¶35

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶36

4.Be that as it may, it is seen that the writ petitioners herein had earlier filed W.P(MD)No.1943 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.2371 of 2011 seeking the relief of regularization and fixation of regular time scale of pay. Their writ petitions were allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on 23.09.2011. The learned single Judge had passed the following order:

¶37

“In all these cases, the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay before the ban order came into existence. They have completed three years of service and when they have approached the authorities for regularisation of their service, the same was rejected. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petitions are filed for a direction to grant them time scale of pay and regularisation after three years from the date of completion of original date of appointment on consolidated pay.

¶38

2.This issue has been covered by unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A(MD)No.273 of 2011, dated 02.03.2011 which has been followed by this Court also.

¶39

3.Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of these petitioners from the date of completion of three years from their original date of appointment. Such orders shall be passed by the respondents, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶40

4/9

¶41

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

¶42

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶43

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶44

5.Aggrieved by the same, the State filed W.A(MD)No.1155 to 1159 of 2014. The Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order passed the learned single Judge and allowed the Writ Appeals on 28.01.2016. Paragraph 10 of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is as follows:

¶45

“ 10.There is also one more additional reason. The respondents were appointed as part-time sweepers in the Directorate of National Cadet Corps on consolidated pay. By G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance Department, dated 01.10.2010, the Government directed sweepers working on daily wage basis and who have completed three years of service to be brought into regular time scale of pay. Based upon the said order, the Government had already issued G.O.Ms.No.79, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department, dated 19.12.2012, sanctioning the creation of 11 posts of sweepers in special time scale of pay so as to absorb 11 persons. The five respondents in these five appeals are included in the said list. In other words, by G.O.Ms.No.79, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department, dated 19.02.2012, the respondents herein have been absorbed into regular time scale of pay with effect from the date of the order. This itself is a concession granted to the respondents, despite the fact

¶46

5/9

¶47

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

¶48

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶49

that the respondents were only part-time sweepers. In paragraph 7 of its judgment in Secretary to Government v. R.Govindasamy, the Supreme Court elicited the principles of law relating to the claim for regularisation of part-time service as follows:

¶50

"7.This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lala & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well- settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under:

¶51

"8(i) .......

¶52

(iv)Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part- time temporary employees.

¶53

(v)Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute."(Emphasis added)

¶54

6/9

¶55

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

¶56

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025

¶57

8.The present appeals are squarely covered by clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) of the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant has already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the respondents which stood regularised would not be affected." Therefore, the order of the learned Judge cannot be sustained.”

¶58

6.Thus, it can be noticed that the Hon’ble Division Bench had implicitly approved G.O(Ms)No.79 dated 19.12.2012. When the Hon’ble Division Bench had allowed the said appeals by placing reliance on G.O(Ms)No.79 dated 19.12.2012, the learned single Judge could not have quashed the same. That is why, we chose to allow the writ appeal. There is no error in our order.

¶59

7.This Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶60

[G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.] 27.03.2026

¶61

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

¶62

7/9

¶63

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

¶64

REV APLC(MD).No.272 of 2025