Madras High Court
WP/5373/2022 of Kruppamma Vs The Secretary to Government on 8 October 2026
WP No. 5373 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 5373 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA010299762022}
Kruppamma
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue
North Block New Delhi 110 001
2. The Chairman
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs North Block, New Delhi 110 001
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise C Division Chennai I Commissionerate Chennai 600 034
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, praying to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment dated 17.07.1993
and confer all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
R Abdul Mubeen
For Respondent(s):
M/s.V.Chandrasekaran SPC for R1
WP No. 5373 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the respondent discriminated the petitioner in the regularisation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that many of them were regularised, whereas the petitioner was singled out. While arguing, the learned counsel relied upon the order passed by the respondent on 21.09.2020, wherein they have rejected on the ground that the petitioner has no educational qualification. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the educational qualification is immaterial for in service candidates, as even according to the DOPT memorandum dated 20.08.2015, the petitioner is a person who was imparted training on account of her illiteracy. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner’s daily wage employment is evident from the details of the daily wagers list prepared by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon slew of the judgments on the ground that his constitutional right of equality has been violated. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.
2. Per contra, the said contention was totally objected by learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government and would contend that the petitioner has already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the similar relief in OA.No.216 of 2020 wherein the Tribunal, by order dated 17.02.2020, has directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and based
WP No. 5373 of 2022
upon the direction, on due consideration of the petitioner's representation, they rejected the same by order dated 21.09.2020. Whereas such order has not at all been challenged by the petitioner. The learned Senior Panel Counsel submits that when the original order of rejection is still not challenged, the attempt of the petitioner with a fresh petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus is illegal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.,
4. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Panel Counsel, there was a previous rejection order dated 21.09.2020 and such order was passed only as per the direction of the CAT. Having such order is in force, the question of seeking 2nd writ of mandamus for same relief does not arise. Therefore, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that, equality is not merely a principle of equal treatment, it is a guarantee against arbitrary action, and relied so much of rulings, this Court is of the firm view that, in the present form of writ petition namely writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, all these aspects cannot be gone through as already a speaking order was passed rejecting the petitioner's request by order dated 21.09.2020.
5. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the present petition. However, in the interest of both the parties, this Court would like to dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, if advised,
WP No. 5373 of 2022
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In the event of filing of such application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, the Tribunal is directed to exclude the period in which the writ petition is pending before this Court.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR To
1. The Secretary to Government Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block New Delhi 110 001
2. The Chairman Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs North Block, New Delhi 110
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise C Division Chennai I Commissionerate Chennai 600 034
WP No. 5373 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 5373 of 2022 08-10-2026