Madras High Court
WP/16275/2024 of GOVINDARAJ Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU on 24 September 2026
WP No. 16275 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 16275 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010795712024}
1. Govindaraj
2. Pandiyan
3. Ponnammal
4. Saraswathi
5. Thangaraj
6. Periyasamy
7. Chinnadurai
8. Kannammal
9. Rajasekar
10.Sengottaiyan
11.Ramachandran
12.Matheshwari
13.Adhi Bhagavan
14.Devagi
15.Vasantha
16.Thirupathi
17.Vijaya Raghavan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Its Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development and
Panchayatraj,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Additional Finance Secretary,
Finance Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
..Respondent(s)
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:44:41 pm )
WP No. 16275 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus, praying to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners’ service from the date of their first appointment as Makkal Nalapaniyalar and pay all the promotion, pension benefits and other monitory benefits on par with the other employees of the respondents within stipulated time For Petitioner(s):
S.Muthukrishnan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Sivalingam
Government Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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 present writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioners’ service from the date of their first appointment as Makkal Nalapaniyalar and pay all the promotion, pension and other monitory benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though they were appointed during 1990, subsequently, after assuming of power by a different Government, they were terminated from service and thereafter, the Government which appointed the petitioners after coming into power, they again appointed and later on they have regularised. It is his contention that since there is no fault on their part, they have been ready and willing to perform their duty. Since because there were some interruption in the service, denial of the
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:44:41 pm )
WP No. 16275 of 2024
pension by ignoring their past service is contrary to the constitutional framework. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhikhani Devi Vs Union of India and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055 and Punjab School Education Board and Another Vs Satnam Singh and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1806. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already given representation in this regard to the respondents on 07.03.2023. However, the said representation has not been considered.
3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the appointment and the continuance of the Makkal Nalapaniyalar has got a chequered history and ultimately, the Government took a policy decision and issued G.O.Ms.No.179 dated 27.11.2008 to regularise the petitioners by appointing them as Office Assistant, Night Watchman and similar postings. He would further submitted that the petitioners, without raising any objection, having accepted and served in that capacity, now after retirement, they cannot seek for counting their past service. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:44:41 pm )
WP No. 16275 of 2024
5. Though there were serious objections raised by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, he submitted that since the matter involves the policy decision and that the petitioners have already given representation on 07.03.2023, instead of going into the merits, the learned Government Advocate submitted that if the court directs, they would consider their representation in accordance with law.
6. In such view of the above submission, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court would like to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 07.03.2023 according to its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that while considering the representation, the authorities are also directed to take into consideration the judgment cited by the petitioner.
7. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs 24-09-2026 (1/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:44:41 pm )
WP No. 16275 of 2024
To
1. The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development and Panchayatraj, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Additional Finance Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:44:41 pm )
WP No. 16275 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 16275 of 2024 24-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 05:44:41 pm )