WP/37999/2024 of S.HARI KRISHNAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU on 24 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Lr.No.S3(2)/021355/2024- 2, dated 03.12.2024, on the file of the second respondent, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s 24 years and 7 months of service, with all monetary as well as service benefits, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court, in view of the Full Bench judgment rendered in M.Sivappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2024 (2) CTC 1, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, in SLP No.22241-45/2016.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Mazdoor in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer on 01.05.2000 and was paid a sum of Rs.1,400/- per month. He was also directed to work in various divisions under the PWD and was made to work throughout the day from 9.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner had worked under the respondent

Department for about 24 years and 7 months. Only after 19 years, he was paid a salary of Rs.13,500/-. He would further submit that, in respect of a similarly situated person, namely, M.Sivappa, the Full Bench of this Court had granted regularization. Relying upon the judgment reported in M.Sivappa’s case (cited supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, despite various representations made through the Field Workers Association seeking regularization of the petitioner, the same had not yielded any favourable result. However, pursuant to the representation submitted in compliance with the direction of this Court, the second respondent, vide the impugned order, rejected the request without considering the factual position in its proper perspective. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the same.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that the judgment in M.Sivappa’s case (cited supra) would be applicable only to part-time employees appointed in the 86 categories of posts enumerated under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Whereas, in the case in hand, the petitioner does not fall under any of the said categories and was engaged only as a contractual labourer. There was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner was not a full-time employee. Therefore, the question of regularization of the petitioner does not arise. He would further submit that the petitioner was engaged only during the period from 2006 to 2010 and thereafter remained absent for more than one year. Therefore, under Rule 18(3) of the Fundamental Rules, he cannot seek regularization. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the judgment in M.Sivappa’s case (cited supra). Though the learned counsel relies upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to regularization, he would, in all fairness, submit that his claim is essentially for parity with the petitioner in M.Sivappa’s case (cited supra), as ordered by the Full Bench of this Court. Even according to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment therein was against a sanctioned post and the requirement was perennial and essential. However, in the case in hand, according to the respondents, the petitioner did not resume duty after the year 2010.

6. Though the petitioner has relied upon M.Sivappa’s case (cited supra), the Full Bench has, in categorical terms, explained that the entitlement to regularization is available only to those who come under the 86 categories of posts enumerated under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. In the said judgment, it has further been clarified that, if the nature of employment is temporary and the requirement ceases to exist after a particular period, it would be open to the Government to engage a temporary employee or a part-time employee.

7. In the present case, the petitioner was a part-time employee engaged on a contractual basis. When G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, came into force, he had not completed ten years of service. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. The impugned order is a well-considered order and does not warrant any interference.

8. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 24-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary To Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-05.

3. Executive Engineer Public Works Department Buildings Construction Division-ii, Chepauk, Chennai-05.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 37999 of 2024 24-09-2026