IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED W.A.No.3854 of 2025

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary School Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

2. The District Collector Thiruvarur District.

3. The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 6. .. Appellants Vs.

1. M.Thaiyal Nayagi

2. The Commissioner Kottur Panchayat Union, Kottur. ..

Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.30628 of 2015 dated 24.02.2022.

For the Appellants : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader For the Respondents : Mr.L.Chandrakumar for R1 Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader for R2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 24.02.2022 made in W.P.No.30628 of 2015.

2. The first respondent was the writ petitioner, who's husband one R.Balakrishnan, was working as a Junior Assistant at the appellant Department and he died in harness, therefore, in his place, by way of compassionate appointment, the first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 as Junior Assistant, that is from 23.10.1982.

3. Since then, she had been continuously working in the appellant Department, however, her service had not been regularized. In the meanwhile, the first respondent/writ petitioner had also passed the relevant test for getting regularized. Despite that, no regularization has been forthcoming, therefore, the first respondent/writ petitioner had approached the then existing Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No.4245 of 2000 seeking regularization, which was considered and a direction was given to consider the plea of the first respondent/writ petitioner.

4. Even thereafter, nothing was forthcoming, therefore, again, the first respondent/writ petitioner was triggered to file a writ petition in W.P.No.8087 of 2009, seeking a direction to regularize. This time, the Court had given directions by the order dated 22.06.2012 to consider the request of the first respondent/writ petitioner for regularization.

5. Even this order since has not been complied with, the first respondent/writ petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.3033 of 2014 and in order to wriggle out from the contempt petition, on 14.07.2015, the regularization order was passed.

6. As the first respondent/writ petitioner, in the meanwhile, after rendering 27 years of service, retired from service on superannuation on 30.04.2009, curiously, the appellant Department has taken the superannuation date, that is 30.04.2009, as the date of regularization of the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner and thereby, by the order dated 14.07.2015, the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner was regularized only with effect from

30.04.2009, that is the date of superannuation.

7. Challenging the said belated regularization from the date of superannuation, as has been made by the order dated 14.07.2015, the first respondent/writ petitioner has approached the Writ Court by filing the said writ petition, that is W.P.No.30628 of 2015, which was pending for nearly about seven years before this Court and ultimately, by the impugned order, the Writ Court has disposed of the said writ petition on 24.02.2022.

8. The learned Writ Court, having taken the pain of dealing with the issue by relying upon various decisions on similar circumstances that has already been tested by the law Courts, ultimately held that, it is nothing but a mockery and travesty of justice in the effect of regularization being confined only from the date of retirement of the first respondent/writ petitioner.

9. We are in complete agreement with the said view taken by the learned Writ Court for the reason being that, once an employee had been appointed on compassionate appo