K.Mariappan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and WMP.No.45585 of 2025 K.Mariappan Petitioner Vs.
1.The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government , Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George Secretariat Chennai 09 2.The Commissioner Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Directorate Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building Chennai 15 3.The District Collector Nagapattinam District Nagapattinam 4.The Project Director Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, 1/7
Nagapattinam Nagapattinam District 5.The Commissioner Vedaranyam Panchayat Union, Vedaranyam Nagapattinam District Respondents PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relating to the impugned orders issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No.15411/ PaA5/ (2) 2017- 12 dated 22.04.2025 and the subsequent impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 5874/ Uoo.Va.2/ 2015 dated 20.05.2025 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to pass orders for granting regularization of service of the petitioner from the date of appointment on 16.11.1994 in the regular sanctioned post, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including arrears of salary and other pensionary benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble court. For Petitioner(s):
S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent:
Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, AGP for R.1 to R.4 Mr.R.Vigneswaran, Govt.
Advocate for R.5.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the 1 st and the 3 rd respondents dated 22.04.2025 and 20.05.2025 respectively, thereby 2/7
rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking regularization of his service from the date of his appointment as an Office Assistant i.e.16.11.1994.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Kalara Mazdoor on a daily wage basis on 13.06.1986. Subsequently, he worked as Godown Watchman on temporary basis. Thereafter, on 16.11.1994, as per Panchayat Resolution, he was appointed as Office Assistant. Thereafter, the 5th respondent passed a Resolution dated 10.03.2000 for the regularization of his service in the post of Office Assistant and submitted a proposal. However, the said proposal was not considered. Thereafter, he retired from service on 31.05.2025. After retirement, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking regularization of his appointment from the date of his appointment as an Office Assistant on 16.11.1994.
3/7
4. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Kalara Mazdoor only on a daily-wage basis. Thereafter, he was engaged as a Godown Watchman on a temporary basis. Subsequently, based on a resolution passed by the 5th respondent, he was appointed as an Office Assistant. The 5th respondent thereafter submitted a proposal seeking the regularization of his services in the post of Office Assistant. However, the said proposal was not considered even till his retirement. The petitioner remained silent until his retirement from service and only after retirement, he submitted a representation seeking regularization of his service from the date of his appointment as an Office Assistant. The said request was rejected by the impugned orders dated 22.04.2025 and 20.05.2025 on the grounds that the petitioner's name did not appear in G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 26.06.2000 for regularisation, and that his appointment was irregular and not made through the proper channel.
5. The petitioner's initial engagement was only on a daily-wage basis, and that too as a temporary worker and his subsequent appointment as Office 4/7
Assistant was only through a resolution passed by the 5th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner's service cannot be regularized from the date of his appointment as Office Assistant, i.e., 16.11.1994.
6. Hence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the 1 st and the 3 rd respondents dated 22.04.2025 and 20.05.2025 respectively. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 29-10-2025 shr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes 5/7
To 1.The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government , Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George Secretariat Chennai 09 2.The Commissioner Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Directorate Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building Chennai 15 3.The District Collector Nagapattinam District Nagapattinam 4.The Project Director Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Nagapattinam Nagapattinam District 5.The Commissioner Vedaranyam Panchayat Union, Vedaranyam Nagapattinam District 6/7
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
shr and WMP.No.45585 of 2025 29-10-2025 7/7