BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER RESERVED ON : 16.02.2026 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 25.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.507 of 2018 S.Velmurugan ....Petitioner Vs

1.The Secretary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Departments St.George Fort Chennai

2.The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai

3.The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul

4.The Project Officer Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Dindigul District Dindigul ....Respondents Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.1896/2015/U.Va.3, dated

17.07.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service and disburse all other service and monitory benefits with effect from 05.02.1999.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian For Respondents :Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition has been seeking to quash the order passed by the third respondent herein wherein the request of the petitioner to regularise his services as Night Watchman with effect from 05.02.1999 has been rejected.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The petitioner herein was appointed as Night Watchman on

05.02.1999 on a daily wage basis in the third respondent office. According to the petitioner, he had registered himself before the Employment Exchange. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.74 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 27.06.2013 and contends that the petitioner is eligible to get an order of regularisation on completion of 10 years of service.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a similarly placed person by name A.Jebaraj Solomon who was appointed on 20.08.2005 in the same department was regularised under G.O.Ms.No.58 Rural Welfare and Panchayat Raj Department dated 20.06.2013 by relaxing the age and not been sponsored through Employment Exchange.

4.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the petitioner is working in the department for more than 25 years as a daily wage on full time basis and therefore, his services have to be regularized. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 (Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others) especially paragraph Nos.26 and 27 of the said judgment. He also relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 144 ( Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad ) in support of his contentions.

5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed only on a daily wage basis and therefore, he is only a casual employee and not entitled to any regularisation. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 (State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others) and another judgment reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113 ( State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department and another Vs. A.Singamuthu) and contended that a casual employee would not be entitled to seek regularisation.

6.The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, the employees should have completed 10 years of service on 01.01.2006. However, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of services as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said Government Order is not applicable to the writ petitioner. He further submitted that G.O.(Ms).No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department