R.Ramamurthy v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

1. R.Ramamurthy

2. K.Shanmugam ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Director, Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 108.

2. The Executive Officer, Karamadai Township, Karamadai 641 104.

..Respondent(s) Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the first respondent to issue regularization order on time scale payment to the petitioners along with the arrears of salary from the date of their entry from the service in the second respondent panchayat. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondent(s):

Mr.G.Ameedius, G.A for R1 Mr.B.Baladhandayutham for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to issue regularization order on time scale payment to the petitioners along with the arrears of salary from the date of their entry from service in the second respondent panchayat.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed as water tank operators in the second respondent Town Panchayat and that their names were included at Serial Nos.11 and 14 in the proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.09.2003 in Na.Ka.No.1627/2000அ. Though 14 persons were listed therein, the services of 12 persons were regularised, leaving the petitioners alone. Despite continuous service and repeated representation, no orders were passed. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to regularise the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits.

3.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. 4.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submitted that the petitioners were engaged only on consolidated pay as per Government orders and were never brought under time-scale of pay. Though their names appeared in consolidated pay proceedings, they were excluded from the time-scale order dated 28.07.2006 as they were wilfully absent from duty from November 2004 and 14.06.2006 respectively. He further submitted that the writ petition suffers from gross delay, suppression of material facts and misleading averments. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5.

This Court has considered the submissions made on either side. Though the proceedings in question were passed in the year 2003, it is evident that the petitioners had absented themselves from duty only from November 2004 and 14.06.2006 respectively. Therefore, the subsequent absence of the petitioners cannot be relied upon to sustain or justify the impugned proceedings passed earlier.

6.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to grant the relief sought for. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to issue orders regularising the services of the petitioners on time-scale of pay and to disburse the arrears of salary from the date of their entry into service in the second respondent panchayat.

7.

In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. 02-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VKR To 1.The Director, Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 108.

2.The Executive Officer, Karamadai Township, Karamadai 641 104.

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

VKR 02-03-2026