Dismissed¶46

M. Ravi v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Feb 2026REV.APPL/48/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application dismissed by Madras High Court (26.02.2026; C.V. Karthikeyan & K. Kumaresh Babu JJ.; order by K. Kumaresh Babu, J.) in R.A.No.48 of 2026 in W.A.No. 2834 of 2023: Division Bench order dated 08.07.2024 regularising petitioner (Tractor Driver regularised 2001) from initial appointment 01.09.2001 without monetary benefits upheld; claim for monetary benefits/full pay on par with other Tractor Drivers and plea of error apparent on face of record (similar cases) rejected for lack of documentary support; filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Although the petitioner alleged that similarly placed persons had been given such monetary benefits, no documents substantiating that allegation were placed before the Court. ¶38

M. Ravi Vs The Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose regularisation was ordered by the Division Bench from the date of initial appointment without monetary benefits, is entitled to monetary benefits for the services rendered by him, on par with the other Tractor Drivers employed by the Department (including full pay from the date of his regularisation). +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The petitioner, having been appointed in a time scale of pay in the year 2001, cannot be said to be aggrieved by denial of the regular pay; his contention for eligibility for full pay from the date of his regularisation as ordered by the Division Bench cannot be entertained.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioner alleged that similarly placed persons had been given such monetary benefits, no documents substantiating that allegation were placed before the Court.

¶38

Key takeaways

The impugned order contained a specific finding as to why the petitioner's claim for monetary benefits was rejected, and the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record to review that finding so as to entitle the petitioner to monetary benefits.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M.Ravi (Review Applicant) v. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and others — Review Application No.48 of 2026 in W.A.No. 2834 of 2023 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, pronounced 26.02.2026; coram C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu JJ.; order made by K. Kumaresh Babu, J.). Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC of the Division Bench order dated 08.07.2024 in W.A.No.2834 of 2023, whereby the petitioner, initially engaged as a Tractor Driver and regularised in service in 2001, was directed to be regularised from his initial appointment date (01.09.2001) without monetary benefits, the service counting only as qualifying service for pensionary benefits — the Division Bench having noted that he joined duty and approached the Court only after 5 years. Applicant contended he was entitled to monetary benefits for services rendered on par with other Tractor Drivers of the Department and pleaded error apparent on the face of the record, alleging that in similar cases the Court had directed regularisation with all monetary benefits. Court found: (i) no documents were produced substantiating the similar-cases claim; (ii) the petitioner, appointed in a time scale of pay in 2001, could not claim aggrievement at denial of regular pay, and his claim to full pay from the date of regularisation ordered by the Division Bench could not be entertained; (iii) the impugned order carried a specific finding rejecting the monetary-benefits claim, and no error apparent on the face of the record was found to review it. Review Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON 06.02.2026 26.02.2026

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶5

Review Application No.48 of 2026 in W.A.No. 2834 of 2023

¶6

M.Ravi … Review Applicant

¶7

¶8

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶9

2.The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagm, Chennai – 600 108. Now at The Director of Town Panchayat, M.R.C.Nagar Chennai – 600 028.

¶10

3.The Executive Officer, Walajabath Town Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai District, Now at The Executive Officer, Walajabath Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District. …Respondents

¶11

Page No: 1/9

¶12

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

¶13

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026 PRAYER:- Review Application filed under Article 226 of the

¶14

Constitution of India read with Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC against the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.2834 of 2023, dated 08.07.2024 and pass such further order.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

¶19

This Review Application has been filed against the order passed in W.A.No.2834 of 2023, dated 08.07.2024.

¶20

Heard Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

petitioner and Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend

¶23

that the petitioner who was regularised in the service had earlier approached this Court for regularisation with retrospective effect ie., Page No: 2/9

¶24

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

¶25

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026 from the date of his initial appointment as a Tractor Driver. He would submit that even though, the Writ Petition for the said relief was rejected, in the Intra-Court Appeal the Division Bench of this Court had directed regularisation from the said date but held that he would not be entitled for any monetary benefits and could only taken for the purpose of qualifying service for the pensionary benefits.

¶26

He would submit that the petitioner had been engaged as a Driver in which service he had been regularised by the orders of this Court, he would also be entitled for the monetary benefits for the services rendered by him on par with the other Tractor Drivers employed by the Department. That apart, he would submit that in similar cases of persons like that of the petitioner, this Court had earlier directed regularisation with all monetary benefits. He would submit that while passing the order, the above aspects have been over-looked by the Bench which requires Review as the same amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court in granting monetary benefits to the petitioner.

¶27

Page No: 3/9

¶28

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

¶29

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026

¶30

Countering his arguments, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the petitioner was regularised in service in the year 2001 and that on the date of his appointment, there has been a ban for regular appointment which came to be lifted in the year 2006. But however he would submit that the Division Bench had directed regularisation with effect from 01.09.2001 ie., from the date of his initial appointment but without monetary benefits. In granting such relief, the Division Bench had also taken into consideration that the petitioner having accepted his appointment and had joined the duty and had approached this Court only after 5 years and therefore, had not granted the monetary benefits to the petitioner. He would submit that such reasonings given by the Division Bench has to be only assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and the same cannot be said to be a material error on the face of the record. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the Review.

¶31

We have considered the submissions made by the learned

¶32

Page No: 4/9

¶33

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

¶34

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026 counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

By order dated 08.07.2024, which is sought to be reviewed, a

¶36

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court of which one us was a party (KBJ) had specifically recorded that the petitioner had approached this Court after a lapse of 5 years of his order of appointment seeking for regularisation

¶37

with effect from initial date of appointment together with other monetary benefits and therefore had specifically recorded that it was not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner but however, the Coordinate Bench had directed regularisation without monetary benefits to enable the petitioner to count his service from the date of initial appointment ie.,01.09.2001.

¶38

Even though, the petitioner had alleged that the similarly placed persons have been given such benefits, no such documents have been placed before us. The petitioner having been appointed in a time scale of pay in the year 2001 cannot be said to be aggrieved for denying

¶39

Page No: 5/9

¶40

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

¶41

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026 the regular pay and therefore his contention for eligibility for the full

¶42

pay from the date of his regularisation as ordered by the Division Bench

¶43

cannot also be entertained.

¶44

In the impugned order under the Review, a specific finding was given as to why the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits had been rejected. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to review the said finding, to entitle the petitioner for monetary benefits.

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, the Review fails and accordingly

¶46

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B., J.) 26.02.2026

¶48

Gba Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No

¶49

¶50

Page No: 6/9

¶51

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

¶52

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026

¶53

The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶54

The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagm, Chennai – 600 108. Now at The Director of Town Panchayat, M.R.C.Nagar Chennai – 600 028.

¶55

The Executive Officer, Walajabath Town Panchayat, Thiruvannamalai District, Now at The Executive Officer, Walajabath Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District.

¶56

Page No: 7/9

¶57

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

¶58

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026

¶59

Page No: 8/9

¶60

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

¶61

Review Appln.No.48 of 2026 C.V. KARTHIKEYAN., J. and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.