P.Saravanan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN P.Saravanan .....
Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu State-600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forests, Velachery Main Road, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu State-600 032.
3.The Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director, Anamalai Tiger Reserve, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43, Coimbatore District.
4. The District Forest Officer Cum Deputy Director, Anamalai Tiger Reserve Division, Pollachi Division, Coimbatore District.
.....
Respondents 1/6
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 in Na.Ka.No.S2/11593/2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and its consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 26.12.2024 made in Na.Ka.No.2974/2024/K2 and quash the same consequently direct respondents to regularize the service of petitioner as driver in the time scale of pay from the date of his appointment i.e., on 03.09.2012 with all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with similarly placed persons within time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Kannapatel For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Premkumar Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 in Na.Ka.No.S2/11593/2023 passed by the second respondent and its consequential order of the fourth respondent dated 26.12.2024 made in Na.Ka.No.2974/2024/K2 and also directing the respondents to regularize the service of petitioner as driver in the time scale of pay from the date of his appointment i.e., on 03.09.2012 with all consequential service and monetary benefits on par with similarly placed persons.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
2/6
3. The similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.22740 of 2010 dated 15.12.2017, wherein this Court held as follows:- " 9.At this, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in the instant case, the petitioner was not recruited by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, he cannot seek a direction whatsoever in the above orders. The said submissions on behalf of the respondents is unacceptable for the reason that the petitioner having been appointed by the respondent administration and extracted the work admittedly till date for nearly 20 years, it is not open to the respondents to raise an issue of sponsorship of employment exchange. Moreover, as particularly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is directly covered by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench as found in the observations made in the aforesaid decision by this Court on 04.09.2017.
10. In view of issue being covered in the above said orders, this Court cannot take a different view in the instant case and therefore, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and the impugned order Pro. C.No.52469 of 2008 S2 dated .03.2009 (Singed on 16.04.2009) is set aside, with a consequential direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as driver from the date of petitioner's initial appointment with all attendant benefits.
11.It is also made clear that on such regularization, the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of differential wages, however he is entitled to other service benefits on such regularisation. The said direction shall be complied with by the respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. In view of the above observations and directions, this Writ petition stands allowed. No costs."
3/6
4. In the light of the above order passed by this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Na.Ka.No.S2/11593/2023 by the second respondent and its consequential order dated 26.12.2024 passed in Na.Ka.No.2974/2024/K2 by the fourth respondent are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as driver from the date of petitioner's initial appointment with all attendant benefits.
5. It is also made clear that on such regularization, the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of differential wages, however he is entitled to other service benefits on such regularization. The said direction shall be complied with by the respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
25.11.2025 Index:Yes/No Lpp 4/6
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu State-600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forests, Velachery Main Road, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu State-600 032.
3.The Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director, Anamalai Tiger Reserve, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43, Coimbatore District.
4. The District Forest Officer Cum Deputy Director, Anamalai Tiger Reserve Division, Pollachi Division, Coimbatore District.
5/6
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp 25.11.2025 6/6