IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.A.Nos.2601, 2714, 2611, 2688, 2663, 2612 & 2674 of 2025 [W.A.No.2601 of 2025]

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme (NM4-2) Department, Fort St. George Chennai – 9.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Finance (Pay) Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

3. The Director of Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme II Floor, Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai – 15. 4. The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. .. Appellants Vs.

S. Kumar .. Respondent Prayer in W.A.No.2601 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 25.03.2024 made in W.P.No.20807 of 2022.

For the Appellants : Mr.M.Sureshkumar in all W.As Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkataramani in all W.As Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

Since all these writ appeals have arisen out of a common order passed by the Writ Court dated 25.03.2024 made in W.P.No.11411 of 2022 and etc. batch, all these writ appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2.1. That it is the case of the respondents/writ petitioners that they have entered into service in the '90s on temporary basis at the Noon Meal Department, which had subsequently been brought under the Social Welfare Department, where, some posts have been created in each of the Panchayat Union, that is Block, where all these people subsequently have been posted.

2.2. From the date of their initial appointment, they have been continuously working for more than a decade and therefore, according to the respondents/writ petitioners, their services should have been regularized on completion of two years probation, as stated by Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners.

3. When this stand was taken by the respondents/writ petitioners before the Writ Court, having accepted the said stand, the learned Writ Court has allowed all those writ petitions, thereby, directions have been given to regularize the services of all of them on completion of the ten years' service period from the date of their initial appointment and by thus, since such ten years' service period, according to the learned Writ Court, was over as early as in the year 2001 or 2002, that is well before 01.04.2003, the cut-off date from when the New Pension Scheme has been implemented, they are all entitled to get pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme covered under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

4.1. But, it is the definite case of the appellant Department that, there were eight writ petitioners and out of these eight writ petitioners, the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.11411, 11413 and 11415 of 2022, namely, Bhavani, R. Devaki and M. Saraswathi, were appointed on 26.06.1991, 13.01.1992 and 20.06.1991 respectively. With regard to the remaining five persons, including the four respondents herein in various writ appeals, they were initially engaged on temporary basis either in the year 1997 or 1999 and in the case of one S.K. Uma, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.20813 of 2022, she was only engaged in the year 2001.

4.2. Therefore, under the benefits provided by the Government by taking a policy decision, as reflected in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006, For brevity, hereinafter referred as “G.O.Ms.No.22”, those who have completed ten years of temporary service would be entitled to get absorbed or regularized. Assuming that the import of G.O.Ms.No.22 is applied to the case of these writ petitioners, except the first three writ petitioners (Bhavani, R. Devaki and M. Saraswathi), the remaining people would get such r