THE ADMINISTRATOR vs P. MANIKANDAN

Court
Madras High Court

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011210372026}
and C.M.P.(MD)No.14329 of 2026
The Administrator
A2530, T.V.S. Co-operative building
Society, T.V.S. Nagar,
Madurai 625003.
..Appellant
Vs
1. P. Manikandan
No.6A, Ladapillai Lane,
Mahalipatti,
Madurai - 625 001.
2. The Registrar
Co-operative Societies (Housing Board) Office,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation
Ltd, II Floor, No.48, Ritherton Road,
Vepperi, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Deputy Registrar
(Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Ltd,)
No.5A, Baskar Complex, Besant Road,
Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
to prefer this memorandum of writ appeal against the order passed by his
Lordship Mr.Justice MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR dated 22-07-
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
2026 passed in W.P.(MD).No.17368 of 2026 on the file of the
Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench for the
following among other grounds.
For Appellant: Mr.R.Saravanan
For Respondents: Mr.R.Anandha Raj For R1
Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar,
Govt. Advocate for R2 And R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.)
This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
22.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.17368 of
2026.
2. The first respondent herein, who is the Writ Petitioner,
filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to revise his
pay in terms of the settlement proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4303/2003/SF(2),
dated 15.06.2009, and consequently, to extend the benefit of the revised
pay from the date on which similarly situated employees were granted
such revision, by considering his representation dated 22.01.2026.
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side,
disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions:
“6. If that be the case, the stand of the respondents
that, the appointment of the petitioner as the Permanent
Clerk on 01.06.2007 is irregular, therefore, he is not
entitled for benefit of revision of pay in terms of proceedings
15.06.2009, cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, this
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
revise the pay of the petitioner in terms of the proceedings
in Na.Ka.4304/2003/SF (2) dated 15.06.2009 on par with
other employees, who were similarly situated and release
all the monetary benefits as expeditiously as possible at any
rate within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No costs.”
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has
preferred the present Writ Appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the first respondent was appointed without following the prescribed
procedure and that his appointment was neither regularised nor approved
by the competent authority. Therefore, it is contended that the first
respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the settlement dated
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
15.06.2009. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant
Society is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and, on that
ground also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants
interference.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent submits that the first respondent was appointed as a
Permanent Clerk in the appellant Society and has been continuously
discharging his duties. It is further submitted that the first respondent is
similarly situated to the other employees who have been extended the
benefit of pay revision under the settlement. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge was justified in directing the appellant to extend the said benefit,
and no interference is warranted in the present Writ Appeal.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
8. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was appointed
as a Permanent Clerk in the appellant Society on 01.06.2007 and has
continued in service thereafter. The principal contention of the appellant
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
is that the appointment was made by the Special Officer and that the same
was irregular. However, it is evident from the submissions made that the
first respondent has continued in service for a considerable period and
that no proceedings have been initiated by the competent authority to
cancel his appointment.
9. Merely because the appointment of the first respondent is
alleged to be irregular, the appellant cannot, without examining the terms
and applicability of the settlement dated 15.06.2009, deny him the benefit
of pay revision extended to similarly situated employees. At the same
time, the mere continuation of an employee in service for a long period
would not, by itself, confer a right to regularisation. The entitlement of
the first respondent to the benefit of the settlement must, therefore, be
considered in the light of the nature of his appointment and the terms of
the settlement.
10. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1, may be referred to. The said decision distinguishes
between an illegal appointment and an irregular appointment in the
context of public employment and the limited circumstances in which
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
regularisation may be considered. In this case, it is not the case of the
appellant that the appointment of the first respondent is illegal and it is
only an irregular. Even otherwise, the first respondent was allowed to
work for more than 19 years. Therefore, under this circumstances, the
contention of the appellant is not extended and the first respondent is
entitled for the benefit under the settlement.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
appellant has failed to make out any valid ground warranting interference
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing revision of
pay in accordance with the terms of the settlement. Therefore, we find no
grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.17368 of 2026. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.)
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VSM
1. The Registrar
Co-operative Societies (housing Board) Office,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd,
II Floor,
No.48,
Ritherton Road,
Vepperij Chennai - 600 007
2. The Deputy Registrar
(Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Ltd,)
No.5A, Baskar Complex, Besant Road,
Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )

WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
VSM
WA(MD) No. 1674 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:18:03 am )