WA/3225/2026 of The Secretary to Government Vs M.Mohan on 16 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) This intra court appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order passed by a learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, who had sought for regularisation of his service with effect from 24.10.2020 in the cadre of Watchman, in which he was appointed on compassionate ground.

2. The subject matter of the writ petition was the impugned proceedings of third respondent therein, who is third appellant herein, namely, District Collector, Dharmapuri, dated 02.09.2024.

3. Respondent – Mohan was appointed on temporary basis as Watchman on 24.10.2020. His appointment was pursuant to the untimely demise of his father – P.Munusamy on 26.04.2004 and the appointment was a compassionate appointment. The proceeding of his appointment was with certain conditions that his appointment as Watchman was purely temporary and he should not claim any promotion or priority based on the appointment and that he had to continue as Watchman. After four years of his service as temporary Watchman, he made a request to the authority for regularisation of

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WA No. 3225 of 2026

his service, which was rejected by the proceeding of District Collector, which was impugned in the writ petition.

4. The order of rejecting the request for regularisation was on the ground that the post of Watchman was created to accommodate the respondent for the post and it had to be vanished on the date of his superannuation and, therefore, in the absence of any proceedings from Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department in the Government for regularisation of his service, District Collector could not consider the request of the respondent. Further, third appellant also stated that regularisation of service for persons appointed on compassionate ground can be considered only if they are wards of deceased regular employees and not otherwise and, in this case, father of the respondent – Munusamy died as a temporary employee and his service was not regularised and, therefore, the respondent cannot seek for regularisation of his service.

5. The learned single Judge, who examined the proceedings of third appellant, rejecting the request of the respondent seeking regularisation, has held that the respondent, who has been appointed as temporary Watchman on compassionate ground, cannot be denied of regularisation of his service just because his father’s service was not regularised. The learned single Judge also recorded that the request of regularisation of service had to be evaluated based on the work discharged by the respondent independently. After taking a conscious decision to appoint him as Watchman on compassionate ground, the service of the respondent had to be determined, regularised and governed as per

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WA No. 3225 of 2026

the service rules in existence, governing the respondent. The post service of his father cannot be considered for any purpose except for the limited purpose of considering the respondent, appointing him on compassionate ground. Having crossed that stage and appointed him in service, regularisation of his service cannot be denied on the ground that his father’s service was not regularised. The learned single Judge, having gone at length, discussing the principle governed for regularising the service of temporary employees and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the oft quoted one in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, has found that the request of the respondent to regularise his service based on his performance cannot be denied for the reasons stated in the proceedings of third appellant.

6. We, after careful scrutiny of the proceeding of third appellant, which has been quashed by the learned single Judge, and the reasoning given by the learned single Judge for his decision, find that there cannot be any other opinion than what the learned single Judge has recorded. Hence, the direction of the learned single Judge to regularise the service of the respondent and pass appropriate orders, protecting the service and monetary benefits on and from the date of his initial appointment, is confirmed. Consequently, Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.28481 of 2026 is closed.

(G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 16-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WA No. 3225 of 2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DIXIT

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )

WA No. 3225 of 2026

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DIXIT WA No. 3225 of 2026 16-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:52 pm )