WP/15101/2013 of M.PRATHAP KUMAR Vs THE ENGINER IN CHIEF & CHIEF on 3 November 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the letter issued by the first respondent in Letter No.S4(1)/ 41196/2011-1 dated 03.01.2013 and consequently direct the first respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner in accordance to G.O.Ms.No.134 PW(C2) Department dated 07.05.2010.

2. Case of the Petitioner:

i. The petitioner was working as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) from the year 1996 onwards without any break. The petitioner originally filed W.P.No.14925 of 2011 before this Court for a mandamus to dispose of his request for regularisation. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.07.2011 with the following order:

"In view of the limited prayer made during the hearing, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to make a representation to the 4th respondent, seeking regularisation of his services as per G.O.Ms.No.134, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 07.05.2010, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 4th respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders within three months thereafter, on merits and in accordance with law, taking into account G.O.Ms.No.134, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 07.05.2010. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs."

ii. After the said order, the respondent did not take any action on the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2011, which necessitated issuance of notice followed by Contempt Petition No.1699 of 2012. Only thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2013. The impugned order reads as follows: ‘’In G.O.Ms.No.134, Public Works (C2) Department dated 07.05.2010, Government have regularized the services of NMRs who have completed 10 years of service before 07.05.2010. Based on the report received from the Executive Engineer, PWD, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Division, Nagercoil, NMR entries in the Service Book from 1996 to 2000, 2002 and 2003 in respect of petitioner are found to be false and also he has stated that the petitioner was working as NMR w.e.f. 26.09.2000 only. The petitioner's period of services in NMR is as follows:

Year No. of days engaged as NMR

Total

Accordingly, he has completed 10 eligible years of NMR service only on 31.12.2012 (i.e.) after 07.05.2010. After taking into account G.O.Ms.No.134, PW (C2) Department dated 07.05.2010, he has not completed 10 years of NMR service before 07.05.2010 and moreover the petitioner was not recruited through the employment exchange also and he has not fulfilled the Statutory Rules in respect of method of recruitment. As stated supra, I am therefore, to inform that the claim for your regularization is hereby rejected’’.

iii. The writ petitioner relies upon G.O.Ms.No.134, PWD (C2) Department, dated 07.05.2010, which enables persons who have completed 10 years of service as on 07.05.2010 for regularisation. It is the further case of the petitioner that he completed 10 years of service since he entered into service in the year 2000 and before 07.05.2010 the date of G.O., he completed 10 years as on 07.05.2010, and hence he is entitled for regularisation as per the said G.O.

3. On the contrary, the respondent, without taking into account the years 2002 and 2003, rejected the petitioner's claim. Another reason stated is that the petitioner completed his service on 31.12.2012. On that basis, petitioner approached this Court for regularisation by invoking GO.No.134 dated 07.05.2010.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed to the writ petition by the 4th respondent. The relevant portion at Para 7 reads as follows: Year / Period Entry made in the service book Days Entry made in the service book Vr. No. Service Status Now Considere d Days Now Considere d Vr. No.

1.1.97 to 26.1.97

11ASE/1-97 Not worked 27.1.97 to 25.2.97

3 ASE/3-97 Not worked 26.2.97 to 25.3.97

23ASE/3-97 Not worked

01.01.98 to 31.1.98

1PB/2-98 Not worked 01.02.98 to 28.2.98

18 PB/3-98 Not worked 01.03.98 to 31.03.98

231PB/3-98 Not worked

01.01.99 to 31.1.99

61PB/2-99 Not worked 01.01.99 to 31.1.99

61PB/2-99 Not worked 01.02.99 to 28.2.99

15PB/3.99 Not worked 01.03.99 to 31.3.99

290PB/3.99 Not worked 01.04.99 to 30.04.99

24PB/5.99 Not worked

01.01.2000 to 31.01.2000

21PB/2-2000 Not worked 01.02.2000 to 29.2.2000

11PB/3.2000 Not worked 1.03.2000 to 31.03.2000

183PB/3.2000 Not worked 26.9.2000 to 25.10.2000 Worked

53Tky/11-

26.10.2000 to Worked

4Tky/12-

Year / Period Entry made in the service book Days Entry made in the service book Vr. No. Service Status Now Considere d Days Now Considere d Vr. No. 25.11.2000

26.3.2001 to 25.4.2001

8Tky/5-2001 Worked

8Tky/5-

26.04.2001 to 25.5.2001

1Tky/6-2001 Worked

2Tky/6-

26.5.2001 to 25.6.2001

45Tky/7-2001 Worked

46Tky/7-

26.5.2002 to 25.6.2002

1Tky/7-2002 Not worked 26.8.2002 to 25.9.2002

17Tky/10-2002 Not worked 26.9.2002 to 25.10.2002

41Tky/10-2002 Not worked

26.5.2003 to 25.06.2003

1Apm/7-2003 Not worked 26.9.2003 to 25.10.2003

4Apm/11-2003 Not worked 26.10.2003 to 25.11.2003

2Apm/12-2003 Not worked 26.11.2003 to 25.12.2003

2Apm/1-2004 Not worked

26.3.2004 to 25.5.2004

1Apm/6-2004 Worked 26.4.2004 to 25.6.2004

2Apm/6-2004 Worked 26.5.2004 to 25.6.2004 - Worked

2Apm/7-

26.9.2004 to 25.10.2004

2Apm/11-2004 Not worked 26.10.2004 to 25.11.2004

1Apm/12-2004 Worked

26.3.2005 to 25.4.2005

1Apm/6-2005 Worked 26.5.2005 to 25.6.2005

2Apm/7-2005 Worked 26.6.2005 to 25.7.2005

4Apm/8-2005 Not worked 26.11.2005 to 25.12.2005

3Apm/1-2006 Worked 26.12.2005 to 25.1.2006 Worked

26.8.2006 to 25.9.2006

13Apm/9-2006 Worked

1Apm/2-06 26.9.2006 to 25.10.2006

27Apm/10-2006 Not worked 26.10.2006 to 25.11.2006

10Apm/11-2006 Worked

Year / Period Entry made in the service book Days Entry made in the service book Vr. No. Service Status Now Considere d Days Now Considere d Vr. No. 26.11.2006 to 25.12.2006 - Worked

21APM/12-

26.01.2007 to 25.02.2007

2Apm/3-2007 Worked - Vr.No. 26.03.2007 to 25.04.2007

5Apm/6-2007 Not available - - 26.04.2007 to 25.05.2007

3Apm/6-2007 worked - - 26.06.2007 to 25.07.2007

10Apm/7-2007 Not available - - 26.08.2007 to 25.09.2007

11Apm/9-2007 worked - - 26.11.2007 to 25.12.2007

2Apm/1-2008 Not worked - - 26.12.2007 to 31.12.2008 worked

1Apm/2-

01.01.2008 to 28.01.2008 - - worked

1Apm/2-

26.02.2008 to 25.03.2008

34Apm/3-2008 Not worked - - 26.03.2008 to 25.04.2008

7Tky/7-2008 Not worked - - 26.04.2008 to 25.05.2008

6Tky/7-2008 Not worked - - 26.07.2008 to 25.08.2008

49Bm/9-2008 worked - - 26.08.2008 to 25.09.2008

14Bm/9-2008 worked - - 26.09.2008 to 25.10.2008

24Bm/11-2008 worked - - 26.11.2008 to 25.12.2008

10Bm/1-2009 worked - - 26.12.2008 to 25.01.2009

3BM/2-2009 worked - -

26.01.2009 to 25.02.2009

135BM/3-2009 worked - - 26.02.2009 to 25.03.2009

354BM/3-2009 worked - - 26.03.2009 to 25.04.2009

503BM/6-2009 Not available - - 26.04.2009 to 25.05.2009

51BM/6-2009 Not available - - 26.05.2009 to 25.06.2009

68BM/7-2009 Worked - - 26.06.2009 to 25.07.2009

94BM/8-2009 Worked - - 26.07.2009 to 25.08.2009

63BM/9-2009 Worked - - 26.08.2009 to 25.09.2009

79BM/10-2009 Not worked - -

Year / Period Entry made in the service book Days Entry made in the service book Vr. No. Service Status Now Considere d Days Now Considere d Vr. No. 26.09.2009 to 25.10.2009

67BM/11-2009 worked - - 26.10.2009 to 25.11.2009

76BM/12-2009 worked - - 26.11.2009 to 25.12.2009

80BM/1-2010 worked - - 26.12.2009 to 25.01.2010

71BM/2-2009 worked - -

26.01.2010 to 25.02.2010

19BM/3-2010 worked - - 26.02.2010 to 25.03.2010

320BM/3-2010 worked - - 26.03.2010 to 25.04.2010

26BM/5-2010 worked - - 26.04.2010 to 25.05.2010

90BM/5-2010 worked - - Since the petitioner does not come under the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the G.O., his claim for regularisation was rejected.

5. On the basis of the affidavit and counter, the matter was originally heard and by order dated 31.07.2008, this Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed W.A.No.88 of 2019. The Writ Appeal was allowed on 26.08.2019 and the matter was remitted to the Writ Court for fresh consideration. The relevant paragraphs in W.A.No.88 of 2019 are extracted hereunder: ‘’3. The relevant paragraphs of the covered judgment are reproduced below :

28. The scheme announced by the Government Order in G.O.Ms.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms, dated 28 February 2006 was in the nature of a benefit to those who have completed 10 years of regular service. The Government has not taken away the right to regularize the services subsequently. The Government, by issuing the order in G.O.Ms.74, Personnnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27 June 2013, made only an attempt to streamline the scheme relating to regularization. The Government which is the author of the earlier policy as found in G.O.Ms.22 dated 28 February 2006, is equally entitled to take a fresh policy decision in supersession of the earlier policy. No right would accrue to the employees to contend that the policy announced by the Government earlier should continue at all point of time. Further, this view taken by the Government is in tune with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.2726 to 2729 of 2014, which arose from orders of this court. We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge was not justified in quashing clause 6 of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27 June 2013.

29. The order passed by the learned single Judge quashing clause 6 is set aside. The writ petitions are remitted to the writ court for fresh consideration to decide as to whether each of the respondents are eligible for regularization in accordance with the order in

G.O.Ms.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27 June 2013, or any other relevant Government Orders governing the matter. The individual cases must be decided on merits, taking into account the nature of service and the period of such service.

4. Accordingly, by following the judgment dated 16 August 2019 in W.A.No.2875 of 2018 etc. batch, the matter is remitted to the writ court to decide the eligibility of the appellant for regularization in accordance with the relevant Government Orders.’’ After remand, the matter is listed for final hearing.

Submissions:

6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate for the respondent.

7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is covered under G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 07.05.2010, since he has completed 10 years of continuous service and the same was not properly considered in the impugned order. To substantiate the same, the counsel placed reliance on the communication dated 26.04.2012 of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Buildings (Construction & Maintenance) Division, Nagarcoil, to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Vazhaiyar Dam, Nagercoil

Sub-Division, dated 26.04.2012, calling for details regarding the service of the writ petitioner. In response to the said communication, the Assistant Engineer, vide letter dated 14.05.2012, confirmed that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service. Once the Assistant Engineer has already confirmed 10 years of service, the same cannot be rejected by way of the impugned order. Furthermore G.O.Ms.No.134 is squarely in favour of the petitioner. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukendu Bhattacharjee and others Vs State of Assam and Others in C.A.No.4514 of 2025 dated 21.05.2026 (2026 INSC 523). The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: ‘’77. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that engaging workers on muster rolls was a consistently employed policy of the State which continued for prolonged period of time. The appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes but were taken on muster rolls and have rendered continuous service for decades in departments performing regular governmental functions. The State itself acknowledged the magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet policy to regularize similarly situated workers, acting upon it in respect of nearly 30,000 employees. In such circumstances, to deny consideration to the fraction of remaining eligible workers including the appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid reading of Umadevi (supra) would defeat the very principles of fairness and non- arbitrariness that this Court has consistently upheld.’’

8. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23823 of 2023 dated 26.02.2024 and prayed for allowing the writ petition.

9. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petitioner has not completed 10 years of service and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.134 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The impugned order is perfectly legal and does not warrant interference. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Discussion and Finding:

10. From the records and the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner claims that he joined service in 1996. However, no material recorded from the year1996 has been produced. On the other hand, the respondent in the counter affidavit has extracted the period of service of the writ petitioner.

11. The Assistant Engineer sent a communication to the Assistant Engineer, Buildings on 14.05.2012, which is extracted hereunder:

12. Subsequently, another communication was sent by the Assistant Engineer, (Buildings) to the Superintending Engineer, dated 15.05.2012. The same is as follows:

13. From the above said communications, it is evident that the official records indicate more than 10 years of service. The communication is of the year 2012. Despite the said communications, the respondent passed an order rejecting the request of the writ petitioner by relying upon certain data that the petitioner worked as NMR only from 26.09.2000. The respondent has not produced any material to substantiate the said data, which has been relied upon.

14. This Court finds that before passing the impugned order, the respondent has not considered the communications dated 14.05.2012 and 15.05.2012 and has not assigned any reason as to why the said communications were disbelieved. This creates a cloud of doubt over the impugned order and the same has to be addressed by the respondent.

Conclusion:

15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration, taking into account the communications dated 14.05.2012 and 15.05.2012, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on merits and in accordance with law.

16. With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. -11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli

1. The Engineer In Chief & Chief Engineer General, Building Constructions andMaintenance, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5

2. The Executive Engineer Building Maintenance Sub Division PWD, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3. Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Organisation, Pachyar, Nagercoil.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Building Constructions And Maintenance Division, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District Pre-delivery order in

-11-2026