Point of law : Service Law – Regularization of service -When appellant had allowed order to become final, he cannot seek for regularization contrary to the said order - l

JUDGMENT :

M. Duraiswamy, J.

1. Challenging the order, dated 17.03.2021, passed in W.P(MD)No.7073 of 2017, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.

2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner for the period between 09.10.1990 to 29.11.2007 and consequently grant all the pensionary and other monetary benefits for the period from the date of appointment till the date of superannuation of the petitioner.

3. It is pertinent to note that as early as on 28.07.2014, the service of the appellant was regularized from 05.12.2007. Admittedly, the appellant had attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013.

4. When the third respondent had regularized the service of the appellant on and from 05.12.2007, by his order, dated 28.07.2014, the appellant has not challenged the same and allowed the order to become final. Without challenging the said order, now the appellant is seeking for regularization from 09.10.1990 to 29.11.2007. When the appellant had allowed the order, dated 28.07.2014 to become final, he cannot seek for regularization contrary to the said order.

5. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration this aspect, has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any merits in the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.