The State Of Tamil Nadu, v. A.Ravi,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 10.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and M.P.No.1 of 2014

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The Commissioner, Kumarapalayam Municipality, Namakkal District.

... Appellants/ Respondents Vs

1. A.Ravi

2. K.Anandan

3. M.Veeramani

4. S.Sakthivel

5. S.Kumar

6. C.K.Baskaran

7. C.Selvakumar

8. D.Sampathkumar

9. K.Venkatesan

10. R.Subramanian

11. A.Prabu

12. A.Sampath Prabu

13. R.Raja Page No.1/8

14.S.Raja

15. C.Vijayan

16. O.Valli

17. P.Kumar

18. K.Dhanalakshmi

19. N.Radhamani

20. P.Sivagami

21. M.Ganapathy

22. K.Vijaya

23. R.Dhanalakshmi

24. K.Krishnan

25. M.Palanisamy

26. M.Samundeeswari

27. S.Mariammal

28. S.Mahendran

29. K.Selvaraj

30. M.Kalliappan 31.P.Chellan

32. M.Janaki

33. M.Ganesan

34. K.Devi

35. M.Rama

36. M.Gannasekaran

37. K.Siva

38. M.Ganesh

39. M.Parthiban

40. D.Ramakrishnan

41. M.Suresh

42. S.Manickam

43. S.Kathirvel

44. C.Lakshmi

45. M.Dharmaraj

46. Arukkani

47. R.Perumal

48. R.Mallika

49. P.Ramasamy

50. P.Senthil Murugan

51. P.Palanisamy

52. S.Sankar Page No.2/8

53. A.Prakash

54. M.Shantha

55. R.Rajalakshmi

56. C.Subramani

57. S.Veeran

58. A.Chellamuthu

59. P.Mahalingam

60. P.Veeran

61. M.Nachimuthu

62. R.Raji

63. S.Rajavel

64. M.Velmani

65. S.Rathinam

66. K.Maadhan

67. K.Madhesh

68. P.Govindaraj

69. A.Ilango

70. T.Palanisamy

71. P.Sivagami

72. Senthil

73. D.Malathi

74. S.Ramaeeswaran ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow the writ appeal, set aside the order & Judgment of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.19524 of 2012 dated 21.09.2012 and consequently dismiss the writ petition.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Kumaravel Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan Page No.3/8

JUDGMENT

(Judgement of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.) This Writ appeal had been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.19524 of 2012 dated 21.09.2012, wherein this Court had directed the respondents therein to regularize the service of the petitioners therein from the date on which they completed three years of service on regular time scale of pay.

2. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge, the third appellant herein had regularized the service of the respondents herein as directed by this Court through an order dated 03.04.2013.

3. In the interregnum, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Dhanasekaran and Ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in [2013 (6) CTC 593] had held that the employees are not eligible for regularization from the date on which they completed three years of service, but only from the date of issuance of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 23.02.2006.

Page No.4/8

4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Full Bench Judgment in Dhanasekaran's case (cited supra) was subject to review before the another Full Bench of this Court and the Full Bench had allowed the Review in Review Application (MD) No.87 of 2014. As against which, the Government had preferred Special Leave Petition in SLP.(C).No.19874 of 2017 and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. In the present case, pursuant to the impugned order in this writ appeal, the third appellant herein had issued proceedings dated 03.04.2013 regularizing the service of the respondents herein. The Full Bench judgment in Dhanasekaran's case (cited supra) came to be passed by this Court on 29.11.2013. Thereafter, the second appellant herein by proceedings dated 20.03.2014 had issued directions to all the Commissioners (except Chennai) and the Municipal Commissioners to stop further action on the orders issued earlier regarding regularization of the consolidated pay employees with retrospective effect, till the orders of the Government are received. The instant writ appeal had been filed on the strength of the Full Bench Judgment in Dhanasekaran's case (cited supra) and the circular issued by the second respondent dated 20.03.2014.

Page No.5/8

6. When the Full Bench judgment in Dhanasekaran's case (cited supra) had been reviewed by a subsequent Full Bench, the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Dhanasekaran's case (cited supra) is no longer subjudice. Hence, the directions issued by the second appellant dated 20.03.2014 also becomes non-est.

7. In the present case, as noted earlier the order impugned in this writ appeal had been given effect to by the third appellant through his proceedings dated 03.04.2013 by regularizing the respondents herein. Further, the grounds raised in the intra-court appeal is only based upon the Full Bench Judgment. It is well settled principles of law that a judgment of a Court cannot be reviewed pursuant to a subsequent judgment, even if the same made by a Larger Bench. Be that as it may, in this case, admittedly, no other grounds have been raised by the appellants challenging the order impugned in this appeal. Further, having implemented the order passed by this Court impugned in this appeal, the appellants could not be heard to claim to be aggrieved persons. On that ground also, the appeal would have to fail.

8. It is brought to our notice that the respondents herein have not been granted the monetary benefits viz., based on the regular time scale Page No.6/8

of pay, in view of the proceedings dated 20.03.2014. We have already held that the said proceedings is an non-est proceedings, therefore, we are of the view that the respondents herein would also be entitled to receive the monetary benefits, however, the same shall be subject to the result of the SLP pending against the review application in Review Application (MD) No.87 of 2014.

9. In fine, this writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the third appellant to disburse the monetary benefits to the respondents from their date of regularization on completion of three years subject to the outcome of the SLP. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.) 10.07.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order mp Page No.7/8

R.SURESH KUMAR., J.

and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.

mp 10.07.2023 Page No.8/8