SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3051

High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN & M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
R. Subramanian
Versus
Govt. of Tamilnadu, rep. by Secretary to Govt., & Agricultural Production Commissioner, Chennai & Another
W.A. No. 395 of 2013
Decided On: 30-08-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:M. Ravi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Karthikeyan, Govt. Advocate for R. Raidhandran, AGP.

An individual benefiting from the concession of retrospective regularisation cannot challenge the terms of the order.

Headnote:

Regularisation - Employment - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment, holding that the appellant, having benefited from the concession of retrospective regularisation, cannot challenge the terms of the order.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought monetary benefits from the date of his initial appointment following retrospective regularisation of his services as a Watchman.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant, having benefited from the concession of retrospective regularisation, cannot challenge the terms of the order.

Issues: The issue was whether the appellant was entitled to monetary benefits from the date of his initial appointment following retrospective regularisation.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellant, having benefited from the concession of retrospective regularisation, cannot challenge the terms of the order.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs.

Judgment :

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. In pursuant to the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, the 1st respondent, passed an order considering the question of regularisation and the issue of giving appointment to the appellant, with retrospective effect. Thereafter, a Government Order was passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.233, Agriculture Department, dated 11.6.2007, by which, the appellant's services were regularised with effect from the date of his initial appointment as a daily wager, from 2.2.1980 with the entitlement of the monetry benefit w.e.f. 22.12.2006. The monetary benefit was granted as per the earlier order passed in G.O.Ms.No.399, Agriculture Department, dated 22.12.2006. Now, the appellant has come forward to file the writ petition stating that in view of the retrospective regularisation, he should be given all the monetary benefits with effect from the date of his initial appointment.

2. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, by holding that in the absence of any legal right, the appellant cannot seek such a relief. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Watchman, on a daily wage basis. However, his age was relaxed and his services were regularised with retrospective effect, by way of a concession. The appellant, having benefited by the said concession, cannot challenge the terms of the said order, by contending that he should be given the monetary benefits from the date of his initial appointment. Further, the appellant was granted such a concession as per G.O.Ms.No.399, dated 22.12.2006, and the said order has not been challenged. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top