The State Of Tamil Nadu v. S. Sujatha
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN WA(MD)No.759 to 763 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.6408, 6410, 6411, 6413, 6414 of 2023 and W.A(MD)No.916 of 2022, 183 of 2023 and 1034 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.7617 of 2022, 4775 of 2023, 2308 of 2023, 7888 of 2023 and W.P(MD)No.6746, 6747,6748 of 2019, 16578 to 16581 & 17556 of 2022, 13638 & 13639 of 2022, 22050 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.9687 to 9689, 9693, 9695, 9697 of 2022, 11721, 11722, 11739, 12011, 11745, 11753, 11993, 11996, 11997, 11998, 11999, 12001, 12002, 12003, 12009 12780, 12782, 16204, 16414 ,17071 of 2022, 5392 to 5394 of 2019, 621/2023, 7214/2023 W.A(MD)No.759 of 2023 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, 4th & 5th Floor, Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet, Chennai.
1/10
3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.
5.The Block Development Officer (B.P) Panchayat Union, Usilampatti, Madurai.
6.The Block Development Officer (B.P) Thiruvembur Panchayat Union, Tiruvembur, Trichy District.
... Appellants/Respondents Vs.
S.Sujatha ... Respondent/writ petitioner PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.12768 of 2022, dated 09.11.2022. For Appellants : Mr.S.Venkatesh Counsel for State For Respondent : Mr.AL.Kannan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions, the Government has filed these writ appeals. 2/10
2. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are identical and all the appeals arise out of a common order, we are inclined to dispose of them by this common judgment.
3. The respondents were appointed as Work Assistants in various local bodies prior to 1997 on daily-wage basis. They were formally treated as contract employees. Under the arrangement, the respondents worked for the local bodies, while their wages were paid through the principal contractors. Subsequently, pursuant to an announcement made by the Minister for Municipal Administration and Rural Development in the Legislative Assembly, a proposal was made to regularize the services of persons who had been engaged on daily wages in local bodies since 1997.
4. A detailed report was submitted, and upon consideration of the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 06.08.2012, regularizing the services of 184 Work Assistants who had completed more than ten years 3/10
of service.
5. The services of all the respondents were regularized pursuant to the said Government Order. Their probation was also declared in due course. It is stated that they had completed more than twelve years of service by the time show-cause notices were issued to them. Thereafter, show-cause notices were issued calling upon them to explain why they should not be removed from service. The respondents submitted their explanations. However, termination orders were subsequently passed after nearly twelve years from the date of regularization.
6. The termination orders were challenged before the learned Single Judge, as the same were primarily based on the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11418 of 2017 dated 09.01.2019 and 30.01.2019.
7.The learned Single Judge found that the interim orders had no connection with G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 06.08.2012, and held that the orders passed by the authorities were ex facie illegal. Accordingly, the termination orders 4/10
were set aside.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeals have been filed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the termination orders were passed on the ground that the respondents had not completed ten years of service as required under G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 06.08.2012. It was further submitted that this Court, in W.P.(MD) No. 11418 of 2017, by orders dated 09.01.2019 and 30.01.2019, had directed an enquiry into the alleged violation of G.O.Ms.No.38, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 03.05.2013, and that action was taken only pursuant to such directions. 10.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. It is not in dispute that the respondents were regularized pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) 5/10
Department, dated 06.08.2012. Appointment orders were issued by the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. It is pertinent to note that the verification process as well as the appointments were carried out by the Commissioner himself. It is also not disputed that the probation of the respondents was declared and that their services stood regularized.
12. After a lapse of nearly twelve years, show-cause notices came to be issued by the District Collector, primarily on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in the interim order passed in W.P.(MD) No.11418 of 2017 dated 09.01.2019. The said writ petition had been filed by one Muruganandam, who had not been selected originally and who alleged violations in the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.69. In that context alone, an interim direction was issued calling upon the District Collector to submit a report.
13. The proceedings in W.P.(MD) No.11418 of 2017 were in no way connected with the appointments made pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.69. The appointments had already been made in accordance with the said 6/10
Government Order by the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. In such circumstances, when no violation of G.O.Ms.No. 69 was either established or even alleged against the respondents, the authorities could not have initiated action merely on the basis of directions issued in another writ petition having no nexus whatsoever with the appointments made under G.O.Ms.No.69.
14. We are of the view that the action of the authorities reflects a knee-jerk reaction undertaken without conducting any proper enquiry. Once the respondents had been appointed to regularized posts and had continued in service for several years, many of them having reached the verge of retirement and some having already retired, the termination of their services after such a prolonged period cannot be sustained.
15. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the termination orders. We also find no merit in these writ appeals.
7/10
16. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17. In view of the findings rendered in the writ appeals, all the connected writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 17.06.2026 Index : Yes / No : Ye / No am Note: Registry is directed to type full-cause title while issuing this order.
8/10
To 1.The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Maligai, 4th & 5th Floor, Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.
5.The Block Development Officer (B.P) Panchayat Union, Usilampatti, Madurai.
6.The Block Development Officer (B.P) Thiruvembur Panchayat Union, Tiruvembur, Trichy District.
9/10
N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
am 17.06.2026 10/10