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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 32747

MADRAS HIGH COURT
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOR WOMEN – Appellant
Versus
MRS.S.ANBU, – Respondent
WA 69 2019



W.A.Nos.69 to 72 & 74 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 31.03.2023

DELIVERED ON:16.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

and

THE HON'BLE TMT.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN

THILAKAVADI

W.A.Nos.69 to 72 and 74 of 2019

and CMP.Nos.692, 698, 695, 696 & 703 of 2019

Secretary to Government for Women

and Child Welfare Department,

Puducherry.

..

Appellant in all W.As.

Vs.

1.Mrs.S.Anbu

2.R.Gunasekaran

3.M.Parayavarthan

4.S.Sundaram

5.E.Dharmalingam

6.R.Gowmathi

..

Respondents 1 to 6 in

W.A.No.69 / 2019

1.L.Marie Catherine

2.L.Helice Vimala

3.N.Vijayalakshmi

4.N.Patchaivazhi

5.A.Prakash

6.B.Kalaniti

..

Respondents 1 to 6 in

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.69 to 72 & 74 of 2019

W.A.No.70 / 2019

1.K.Subrayalu

2.M.Mariapan

3.A.Velmurugan

..

Respondents 1 to 3 in

W.A.No.71 of 2019

1.A.Munusamy

2.E.Vengadesan

3.S.Velmurugan

4.D.Soupramananien

5.C.Ramamurthy

6.P.Vengadabady

7.P.Sattivelane

8.K.Rajeswary

9.H.Arulmozhi

..

Respondents 1 to 9 in

W.A.No.72 of 2019

1.V.Karthik

2.B.Sulochana

3.S.Sunasegaran

4.R.Kanthaperumal

5.B.Prem

6.S.Sinrajalu

7.A.Murugaiyan

8.L.Veerararagavaperuman @ Arun

9.A.Kamalathasan

10.B.Gobinathan

11.R.Purushothaman

12.T.Selvaganapathy

13.M.Murugasamy

..

Respondents 1 to 13 in

W.A.No.74 of 2019

Chairperson,

Puducherry Women's Commission,

Puducherry.

..

Respondent No.7 in W.A.Nos.69 &

70 of 2019

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.69 to 72 & 74 of 2019

Respondent No.4 in W.A.No.71/2019

Respondent No.10 in WA.No.72 / 2019

Respondent No.14 in WA.No.74/2019

Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against

the common order dated 07.09.2017 made in W.P.Nos.4803, 12775,

24508, 26370 and 26371 of 2012.

For Appellants

:

Mr.R.Sreedhar,

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondents

:

Mr.L.Chandrakumar

COMMON JUDGMENT

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

The appellant has filed these writ appeals challenging the

impugned common order dated 07.09.2017 made in W.P.Nos.4803,

12775, 24508, 26370 and 26371 of 2012, in and by which the learned

Single Judge, has directed the appellant/first respondent in the writ

petitions to apply the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.22, Department of

Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dated 27.02.2009 to the

respondents/writ petitioners and regularize their services from the date of

their initial appointment by sanctioning necessary posts in respect of

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.69 to 72 & 74 of 2019

various categories in which the writ petitioners/respondents concerned

are working and grant all other attendant monetary benefits.

2. Facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as follows.

For the sake of brevity, the array of parties in W.A.No.69 of 2019 is

adopted:

2.1. The writ petitioners are all casual employees working in the

seventh respondent commission which is functioning under the appellant

Department. The seventh respondent Commission was constituted in the

year 2004 as per the orders of the Government of India. It is a statutory

body being controlled by the appellant Department viz., Women and

Child Welfare Department. The entire funds for the Commission is

funded by the Government of Puducherry.

2.2. The writ petitioners came to be appointed on various dates

during the year 2004 on casual basis and they have been allowed to

continue in their work uninterruptedly without any break. They were

originally paid daily wages ranging from Rs.277/- to Rs.376/- depending

4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.69 to 72 & 74 of 2019

on their employment in various categories. Since the writ petitioners

have been continuously working from the date of their respective original

appointment, they have been recommended by the appellant for

regularizing their services on par with regular employees employed by

the Government in similar categories.

2.3. According to the writ petitioners, originally the Government

of Pudu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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