The Madras High Court has ruled that a Noon Meal Organizer holds a substantive post under the State Government and is entitled to regularization of the suspension period, even in the absence of statutory service rules. A Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel dismissed a writ appeal filed by the District Collector, Madurai District, and other authorities, affirming the Single Judge’s order that directed payment of eligible subsistence allowance to a retired Noon Meal Organizer for the period she remained under suspension.

The respondent, P. Pushpam, served as a Noon Meal Organizer before her retirement. She was placed under suspension on 22 August 2011 following her involvement in a criminal case registered as Crime No.119 of 2011. The investigation led to three calendar cases in which she was arrayed as an accused. However, a compromise was reached with the complainant, and the Madras High Court subsequently quashed the proceedings in all three cases. Departmental proceedings initiated against her also concluded with a finding that the charges were not established.

Despite these outcomes, the appellants declined to regularize the suspension period between 22 August 2011 and 27 February 2014, arguing that the post of Noon Meal Organizer was created under a specific scheme and was not governed by any service rules. They contended that the employee did not belong to a recognized cadre under the State Government and therefore no benefits could be extended.

Pushpam challenged the order of the Personal Assistant to the District Collector dated 5 April 2021 before a Single Judge, who allowed her writ petition in November 2024. The Single Judge directed the authorities to pay subsistence allowance for the suspension period. Aggrieved, the District Collector and other officers filed the present writ appeal.

Background of the Case

The core legal dispute revolved around the status of a Noon Meal Organizer. The appellants maintained that since the post was created under an executive scheme, the incumbent could not claim the protections available to regular government servants. They argued that in the absence of specific rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the period of suspension could not be regularized.

Pushpam, however, relied on the judgment in G. Periannan vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 2007 (3) CTC 806, where a Single Judge of the same court had examined an identical question. That judgment held that a Noon Meal Organizer is a public servant holding a substantive post under the Tamil Nadu Government, and the post was created pursuant to a Government Order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution.

Legal Precedents and Arguments

During the appeal, the Division Bench drew support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh K. Sharma & Another vs. Rajasthan Civil Services & Others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 637. In that case, the apex court examined whether an individual appointed on the basis of an executive order could be considered as holding a substantive position. The Supreme Court observed that the expression “service rules” does not necessarily mean rules framed under Article 309. It held that service conditions, including the mode of recruitment, can be determined by a set of administrative orders in the absence of statutory rules.

The Division Bench noted that the Government Order creating the post of Noon Meal Organizer prescribed the minimum educational qualification, age limit, vacancies, and mode of selection through written test and interview. This, the court held, was sufficient to establish that the post was substantive in nature and not ad hoc or temporary.

Court’s Observation and Decision

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, observing that once it is established that a Noon Meal Organizer holds a substantive post under the State Government, she becomes entitled to regularization of the suspension period. The court noted that both the criminal cases and the departmental proceedings had ended in her favor—the criminal cases were quashed and departmental charges were not proved.

“The post of Noon Meal Organiser was created under a Government Order issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India,” the Bench recorded. It further observed: “The expression ‘service rules’ does not necessarily mean rules framed by the Governor in exercise of power under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is well settled that the service condition including the mode of recruitment to a service could be determined by a set of administrative order in the absence of any statutory rule operative in the field.”

Citing the Supreme Court precedent, the Division Bench reasoned that since the Government Order provided the method of recruitment, it would constitute a service rule within the meaning of the law. Consequently, the employee was entitled to have the suspension period treated as regular service and to receive subsistence allowance.

In its concluding remarks, the court stated: “In view of the above, we would concur with the said view and not interfere with the said order and, accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.”

The decision reinforces the principle that employees appointed under government orders or executive schemes are not excluded from the protections available to regular government servants. The ruling is particularly significant for a large number of workers engaged under various welfare and nutrition schemes across states, whose service conditions are often governed by administrative orders rather than statutory rules. The Division Bench’s verdict affirms that such employees are entitled to the same benefits as other government employees when criminal and disciplinary proceedings end in their favor.

With the dismissal of the appeal, the Single Judge’s order stands, and Pushpam will receive the subsistence allowance for the period she remained under suspension, bringing closure to a long-standing grievance that spanned over a decade.