Advocates:
['M/S K BHARATHI', '', 'U ALAZHULAKSHMI', 'K SURESH', 'special government pleaderforest cases', '', 'for rr', 'r']

W.A.No.2688 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.12.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

W.A.No.2688 of 2019

P.Manickam

...Appellant

Vs.

1.Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Director,

Arignar Anna Zoological Park,

Vandalur, Chennai – 600 048.

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HOD),

Panagal Building, Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.

...Respondents

Prayer

: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the

order passed in W.P.No.16695 of 1998 dated 05.03.2019.

For Appellant

: Mr.S.Kumaraswamy

for K.Bharathi

For Respondents

: Mr.G.Nanmaran

Special Government Pleader

J U D G M E N T

1/9

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

W.A.No.2688 of 2019

(Judgment was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition in

W.P.No.16695 of 2018, wherein, he had prayed for a writ of mandamus

directing the respondents to regularize his services with effect from

01.02.1999 as per the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent dated

17.02.2016.

2. The writ Court had gone on a presumption that the petitioner is

seeking regularization for the first time and has dismissed the writ petition

relying upon the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. V.Umadevi and

others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.

3. The facts are otherwise. The appellant along with several others

was employed as a scavenger/ Mali in the Arignar Anna Zoological Park,

Vandalur, when it was commenced in the year 1984. They were being

employed at a daily wage basis. The petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1093 of 1991 seeking a direction for

regularization. The Tribunal by its order dated 13.10.2002 directed

2/9

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

W.A.No.2688 of 2019

regularization of his services.

4. Since nothing was done pursuant to the order, the petitioner

again approached this Court in W.P.No.12536 of 2006. The said writ

petition was resisted by the respondents contending that the appellant is not

entitled to regularization since his services were terminated due to mis-

conduct between 16.06.1995 and 01.04.1996. This Court repelled the said

contention and directed that the appellant's services should be regularized in

the light of the order passed by the Tribunal and recommendation made by

the Director of Arigna Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur on 06.03.2003.

5. Even on 06.03.2003, the 2^nd respondent had recommended that

the appellant's services be regularized with effect from 01.02.1999, wherein

his immediate junior's services were regularized. Again after the disposal of

the writ petition by this Court on 27.08.2010, the 2^nd respondent sent in a

recommendation on 17.02.2016 recommending regularization of the services

of the appellant with effect from 25.01.1999 instead of 30.09.2010 as done

in G.O.Ms.No.142 E&F (FR-V) Department.

6. It is at this stage, the petitioner again approached this Court

3/9

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

W.A.No.2688 of 2019

seeking a direction for being regularized with effect from 01.02.1999 as per

the recommendation of the 1^st respondent and it is in this writ petition, the

writ Court passed the order impugned on the assumption that the petitioner

is seeking regularization for the first time.

7. Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would vehemently contend that the order of the writ Court is

flawed, in as much as, it went on an assumption that the petitioner is seeking

regularization for the first time. This Court had issued direction to regularize

the services of the appellant even in W.P.No.12536 of 2006 on 27.08.2010

and pursuant to the direction, the appellant's services were already

regularized with effect from 30.09.2010 and he has also joined duty as

regular employee from 01.10.2010. His grievance was that