WP/27134/2022 of V.Narayanan Vs The Secretary to Government on 18 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed to call for the records leading to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.286 PW(C2) Dept. dated 13.12.2005 issued by the first respondent, letter No.nfh/2W/cbrbgh(F)/2021 dated 12.08.2021 issued by the fourth respondent, letter No.v!;5(1)/019255/2022 dated 18.03.2022 issued by the second respondent, and letter No.Lr.No.v!;/4(4)-26111-2022 eg1 tUlk; dated 15.06.2022 issued by the third respondent, to quash the same, and to direct the respondents to sanction monetary benefits to the petitioner in the post of Work Inspector Grade-II for the period from 16.08.1995 to 12.12.2005.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in G.O. (Ms).No.680 PW(C2) dated 16.08.1995, the services of 109 fully qualified and 662 non-qualified NMR employees who had completed ten years of service were regularised and brought into regular establishment by appointing them to the categories of posts mentioned in Annexures I to XII of the said G.O. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the services of qualified NMR employees were regularised on different dates ranging from 01.07.1987 to 01.01.1990, with monetary benefits extended from the respective dates of their regularisation. In the aforementioned G.O., though the petitioner's services were regularised with effect from 01.07.1987, the corresponding monetary benefits were granted only from 13.12.2005. It is submitted that a similarly placed individual, one Mr.G.Nallusamy, had challenged the restrictive conditions of the G.O., and while his services were regularised from 01.07.1988, he was granted monetary benefits from 16.08.1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore submit that since the petitioner is a similarly placed person to the said Mr.G.Nallusamy, he must be granted monetary benefits from 16.08.1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD). No.277/2018 and the consequential G.O. passed by the Government.

3. The said contention is objected to by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent who would submit that the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench is in the nature of a judgment in personam and that the above order is the culmination of the said Mr.G.Nallusamy's action against the regularisation by filing the O.A. in the year 1995. It is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner having not taken action since 1985 simply because some orders have been passed, cannot seek relief now, as the judgment cannot be considered a judgment in rem. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application.

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

5. According to the submission of the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner as well as Mr.G.Nallusamy were not on a regular post or any time scale of pay. The learned Government Advocate has also brought to the notice of this Court that the said Mr.G.Nallusamy had filed O.A.No.7463/1995 for regularisation under the relevant rules pertaining to the qualification for regularisation of 1985 as Work Inspector Grade-II. It is also further submitted that the petitioner had no qualification to be posted as a Work Inspector when regularisation had been given to Mr.G.Nallusamy The petitioner cannot seek such regularisation as a matter of right.

6. This Court has perused the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. (MD). No.277/2018. While looking into the position, the Division Bench relied on the discriminatory conduct of the respondent as against one Narayanan and, taking consideration of the same, a relief was granted to him. Therefore, it is amply clear that Mr.G.Nallusamy had challenged the discriminatory conduct of the respondent as early as in the year 1995, which culminated by way of the writ appeal order dated 19.02.2018, whereas the petitioner did not challenge such discrimination at all along from 1995. He has come up with the present writ petition only after the order in W.A(MD).No.277/2018.

7. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner cannot seek parity with the order in W.A(MD).No.277/2018, as the above judgment is in the nature of a judgment in personam. Furthermore, though the petitioner seeks similar relief in the present writ petition, in view of the long lapse of time, the same would be hit by delay and laches. Accordingly, the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate are overwhelming. Therefore, interference with the G.O. after a lapse of 18 years cannot be encouraged.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NSL

To

1. The Secretary to Government, PWD Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Engineer in Chief, Chief Engineer (General) and Chief Engineer, Chennai Rajan, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General) Water Resource Department, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings, (B & M) Sub-Division, Kumbakonam.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL WP No. 27134 of 2022 18-09-2026