High Court · 2025

W.A.No.367 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR ANDTHE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE W.A.No.367 of 2023Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.(A Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking)Rep. By the Chairman and Managing DirectorKathipara, Chennai – 16...AppellantVs.1. M.Kannan2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.3. The Principal Secretary to Government Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9...RespondentsPrayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.04.2022 in W.P.No.17221 of 2013.For the Appellant:Mr.A.PrabhakaranFor the Respondents:Mr.R.D.Ashokkumarfor Mr.S.N.Ravichandranfor R1Mr.R.KumaravelAdditional Government Pleaderfor R2 and R3Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 22.04.2022 made in W.P.No.17221 of 2013.2. The first respondent M.Kannan was appointed by the appellant Department on temporary basis with effect from 01.08.1991. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, under which, those who completed ten years of service would be entitled to get regularized. 3. In order to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, the appellant Department issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.91, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (C) Department dated 10.07.2009, giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.22, to regularize the service of the first respondent only from the date of issuance of the Government Order, that is from 10.07.2009. Aggrieved over the same, the said writ petition was filed. 4. Similarly placed employee of the same Department had Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023already approached the Writ Court in W.P.No.1302 of 2013, which was allowed by the Writ Court by order dated 22.04.2022 as against which, W.A.No.376 of 2023 was filed, where, today, we have passed an order to the following effect:-“This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 22.04.2022 made in W.P.No.1302 of 2013.2. The first respondent K.S.Chakravarthy was appointed on temporary basis by the appellant Department on 08.08.1988. He had been working in that capacity only on temporary basis. When that being so, in order to give the benefit of regularization to these temporarily appointed employees, the Government has come forward to issue a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, under which, those who have completed 10 years' service as temporary employee as on 01.01.2006 would be entitled to get absorbed and regularized on completion of 10 years' service. For giving the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, the appellant Department had brought the first respondent employee into regularization by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.91, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (C) Department dated 10.07.2009. However, such regularization was given effect only from the date of issuance of the Government Order, that is from 10.07.2009.3. Challenging the said belated regularization that has been given in favour of the first respondent, the first respondent moved the Writ Court by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.1302 of 2013. 4. The learned Writ Court, having considered the import of G.O.Ms.No.22, as well as the service rendered by the first respondent/writ petitioner on temporary basis for more than 10 years, which he Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023completed in the year 1998 itself and since he would be entitled to get the benefit of regularization on completion of 10 years by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.22, was pleased to set aside G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 10.07.2009 and gave directions to the appellant Department to issue a revised Government Order, by thus, giving regularization with effect from the date he completed the ten years' service from the date of initial appointment as a temporary employee. That order of the Writ Court is appealed before this Court in the present appeal.5. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.D.Ashokkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for respondent 1 and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.6. After having gone through the order that is impugned herein, we do not find any error in the approach and conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge. The reason being that, the import of G.O.Ms.No.22 has made it very clear that on completion of ten years' service on temporary basis, these incumbents are entitled to get regularized. This Government Order, though was issued on 28.02.2006 with 01.01.2006 as the cut off date, as on 01.01.2006, those who have already completed 10 years' service should have been regularized, except from the date of initial appointment as temporary employee. 7. Here, in the case in hand, the first respondent was appointed temporarily on 08.08.1988. Therefore, on 08.08.1998, he became eligible to get regularized and therefore, if at all regularization is to be made by giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.22, the Department could have issued Government Order, regularizing the service of the first respondent with effect from 08.08.1988.Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 20238. Therefore, the said reasoning and conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge in directing the Department to issue a revised Government Order, giving such regularization on completion of ten years' service from 08.08.1988 to the first respondent is perfectly in order and therefore, does not warrant any interference at the hands of the Division Bench. Hence, the writ appeal fails and stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”5. In view of the aforesaid order, the present appeal also has to face the same fate. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J) 25.03.2025 Neutral Citation:Yes/NodrmTo:1. The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (A Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking) Kathipara, Chennai – 16.2. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.3. The Principal Secretary to Government Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.R. SURESH KUMAR, J.AND Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023A.D.MARIA CLETE , J. (drm) W.A.No.367 of 202325.03.2025(2/2) Page 6 of 6

W.A.No.367 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR ANDTHE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE W.A.No.367 of 2023Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.(A Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking)Rep. By the Chairman and Managing DirectorKathipara, Chennai – 16...AppellantVs.1. M.Kannan2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.3. The Principal Secretary to Government Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9...RespondentsPrayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.04.2022 in W.P.No.17221 of 2013.For the Appellant:Mr.A.PrabhakaranFor the Respondents:Mr.R.D.Ashokkumarfor Mr.S.N.Ravichandranfor R1Mr.R.KumaravelAdditional Government Pleaderfor R2 and R3Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 22.04.2022 made in W.P.No.17221 of 2013.2. The first respondent M.Kannan was appointed by the appellant Department on temporary basis with effect from 01.08.1991. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, under which, those who completed ten years of service would be entitled to get regularized. 3. In order to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, the appellant Department issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.91, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (C) Department dated 10.07.2009, giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.22, to regularize the service of the first respondent only from the date of issuance of the Government Order, that is from 10.07.2009. Aggrieved over the same, the said writ petition was filed. 4. Similarly placed employee of the same Department had Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023already approached the Writ Court in W.P.No.1302 of 2013, which was allowed by the Writ Court by order dated 22.04.2022 as against which, W.A.No.376 of 2023 was filed, where, today, we have passed an order to the following effect:-“This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 22.04.2022 made in W.P.No.1302 of 2013.2. The first respondent K.S.Chakravarthy was appointed on temporary basis by the appellant Department on 08.08.1988. He had been working in that capacity only on temporary basis. When that being so, in order to give the benefit of regularization to these temporarily appointed employees, the Government has come forward to issue a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, under which, those who have completed 10 years' service as temporary employee as on 01.01.2006 would be entitled to get absorbed and regularized on completion of 10 years' service. For giving the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, the appellant Department had brought the first respondent employee into regularization by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.91, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (C) Department dated 10.07.2009. However, such regularization was given effect only from the date of issuance of the Government Order, that is from 10.07.2009.3. Challenging the said belated regularization that has been given in favour of the first respondent, the first respondent moved the Writ Court by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.1302 of 2013. 4. The learned Writ Court, having considered the import of G.O.Ms.No.22, as well as the service rendered by the first respondent/writ petitioner on temporary basis for more than 10 years, which he Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023completed in the year 1998 itself and since he would be entitled to get the benefit of regularization on completion of 10 years by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.22, was pleased to set aside G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 10.07.2009 and gave directions to the appellant Department to issue a revised Government Order, by thus, giving regularization with effect from the date he completed the ten years' service from the date of initial appointment as a temporary employee. That order of the Writ Court is appealed before this Court in the present appeal.5. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.D.Ashokkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for respondent 1 and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.6. After having gone through the order that is impugned herein, we do not find any error in the approach and conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge. The reason being that, the import of G.O.Ms.No.22 has made it very clear that on completion of ten years' service on temporary basis, these incumbents are entitled to get regularized. This Government Order, though was issued on 28.02.2006 with 01.01.2006 as the cut off date, as on 01.01.2006, those who have already completed 10 years' service should have been regularized, except from the date of initial appointment as temporary employee. 7. Here, in the case in hand, the first respondent was appointed temporarily on 08.08.1988. Therefore, on 08.08.1998, he became eligible to get regularized and therefore, if at all regularization is to be made by giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.22, the Department could have issued Government Order, regularizing the service of the first respondent with effect from 08.08.1988.Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 20238. Therefore, the said reasoning and conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge in directing the Department to issue a revised Government Order, giving such regularization on completion of ten years' service from 08.08.1988 to the first respondent is perfectly in order and therefore, does not warrant any interference at the hands of the Division Bench. Hence, the writ appeal fails and stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”5. In view of the aforesaid order, the present appeal also has to face the same fate. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed, hence, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J) 25.03.2025 Neutral Citation:Yes/NodrmTo:1. The Chairman and Managing Director Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (A Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking) Kathipara, Chennai – 16.2. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.3. The Principal Secretary to Government Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.R. SURESH KUMAR, J.AND Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.367 of 2023A.D.MARIA CLETE , J. (drm) W.A.No.367 of 202325.03.2025(2/2) Page 6 of 6