C.Tamilvelmurugan vs The State of tamil Nadu rep. by its

WP No. 22283 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 22283 of 2022
AND
WMP NO. 21317 OF 2022
C.Tamilvelmurugan
S/o. Chinnasamy
No. 70 E/A Kunankulam North
Kilpakkam Street, Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar 626 125.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection
Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
NVN Natarajan Maaligai,
No. 170 E.V.R. Periyar Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Directing the
respondents, calling for records relating to the 1st respondents order made in
G.O. (2D) No. 21 Cooperation, Food and Consumer protection (CL-2)
Department dated 20.04.2022 to quash the same and to consequently direct
the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith regularise the service of the petitioner
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
w.e.f. 16.10.1989 and to treat the period between 10.10.1990 and 23.12.2007
as duty for all purposes and to extend all benefits both service and monetary
inclusive of appropriate fixation of pension and pensionary benefits arising
thereto.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam
Government Advocate
*
ORDER
st
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging order passed by the 1
respondent in G.O.(2D).No.21, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection
(CL2) Department, dated 20.04.2022 and consequently, to direct the
respondents to forthwith regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f.
16.10.1989 and to treat the period between 10.10.1990 to 23.12.2007 as duty
for all purposes and to extend all benefits both service and monetary inclusive
of appropriate fixation of pension and pensionary benefits arising thereto.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
he was initially appointed as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies on
16.12.1985 under 10(a)(i). Since he has got no qualifying service, his pension
was denied. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
though he has been initially appointed on 10(a)(i) basis candidate, a Special
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
Qualifying Examination was conducted and he was selected on 15.10.1989.
However, his result was withheld by the Service Commission. Therefore, he
was not in a position to join duty between 1990 to 2007 and during such
period, he is out of employment. However, the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, vide order dated 18.10.2007 has declared the result and also
requested the Government to regularise the temporary/retrenched service as
Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies and his seniority was also fixed as
291-A.
3. In the meanwhile, one of the co-employee one Mr.K.Mariappan has
filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31840 of 2013, in which this Court vide order
dated 12.07.2018 directed the respondents therein to grant all the benefits that
are envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.324, Co-operative Food and Consumer
Protection Department, dated 09.12.1997.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further
nd
submit that based on the above said order, the 2 respondent has already sent
a proposal to the Government, whereas the Government has rejected the same
by referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in
AIR 2014 SC 764 , vide impugned order dated 20.04.2022.
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would strongly oppose this writ petition on the ground that the
said K.Mariappan was given benefits by relaxing the condition, whereas the
petitioner cannot seek such relaxation as a matter of right, it is for the
Government to take a call on it. Apart from that, as per Section 17 of the
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 the part
time service cannot be counted. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 764 , the earlier order
passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be acted upon. Since because the
benefit given to one K.Mariappan based on the judgment of this Court, the
rejection order passed by the Government based upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be faulted with and otherwise, it would
amount to negative equality. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present writ
petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
7.In the case in hand, the very claim of the petitioner has been filed
only after one K.Mariappan, who succeeded in his writ petition in
WP.No.31840 of 2013 dated 12.07.2018 and after it’s culmination of G.O.
(Ms).No.131 dated 09.11.2019. While looking into the factual aspects, the
petitioner’s appointment was confirmed in 2007. Though he was ousted
between 10.10.1990 and 23.12.2007, he did not object the same. When they
were appointed during 2007, the order did not say about the service benefits
whether it is from the date of their initial appointment or not.
8.Admittedly, this petitioner was out of employment since 1990 to
2007. He challenged his non regularization only during 2020, admittedly,
after the G.O has been passed in favour of one K.Mariappan. Now the issue
in respect of regularization of K.Mariappan, is not in dispute. Whether the
petitioner can seek such regularization as a matter of right and whether he can
raise objection after a lapse of 23 years from the date of his ouster, and 10
years after his re-inductment. Had the petitioner has any issue in respect of
his re-appointment during 2007 particularly for not considering the past
service, he has got ample opportunity to immediately raise objections.
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
9. The petitioner, having accepted such an order and continued to
work without raising any grievance, at the verge of the retirement, that too
when a similarly placed person one K.Mariappan has got an order,
approaching this Court would only make that the petitioner to be treated as a
fence-sitter. It is relevant to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava , reported in (2015) 1 SCC
347. According to the above judgment, when the affected persons not
challenging the wrong action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and
woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts
who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts,
cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of a
similarly situated persons, as the delay comers would be treated as fence-
sitters and latches and delays, and/or the acquiescence would be a valid
ground to dismiss their claim.
10.Admittedly, in the case in hand, the case relied by the petitioner is
a case in the nature of judgment in personam. Therefore, the long delay viz.,
almost 29 years from the date of ousting and 12 years from the date re-
appointment would clearly bring the case of the petitioner within the
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
parameter of latches. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of
Arvind Kumar Srivastava [cited supra]:-
“16. Mr P.N. Misra drew our attention to the following
observations in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India [Rup Diamonds
v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356 : AIR 1989 SC 674] : (SCC
p. 360, para 8)
“8. Apart altogether from the merits of the grounds for rejection—
on which it cannot be said that the mere rejection of the special
leave petitions in the cases of M/s Ripal Kumar & Co. and M/s H.
Patel & Co., could, by itself, be construed as the imprimatur of
this Court on the correctness of the decisions sought to be
appealed against—there is one more ground which basically sets
the present case apart. The petitioners are reagitating claims
which they had not pursued for several years. The petitioners
were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit
on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. Their
case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had
been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to
enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a
law later so declared void. There is also an unexplained,
inordinate delay in preferring this writ petition which is brought
after almost an year after the first rejection. From the orders in
Ripal Kumar & Co. case and H. Patel & Co. case it is seen that in
the former case the application for revalidation and endorsement
was made on 12-3-1984 within four months of the date of the
redemption certificate dated 16-11-1983 and in the latter case the
application for revalidation was filed on 20-6-1984 in about three
months from the Redemption Certificate dated 9-3-1984.”
That case pertains to import facility for import of OGL items
available under Paras 185(3) and (4) of Import-Export Policy,
1982-1983 to export houses after discharging export obligation on
advance/imprest licence. The petitioners had applied for, and
were granted, this imprest licence for the import of uncut and
unset diamonds with the obligation to fulfil certain export
commitment for the export, out of India, of cut and polished
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
diamonds of the FOB value stipulated in each of the imprest
licences. As per the petitioners, they have discharged their export
obligation and, therefore, in terms of Para 185(4) of the Import-
Export policy, they were entitled to the facility for the import of
OGL items. However, they sought revalidation four years after
discharge of export obligation and five years after the expiry of
the licence. This claim was rejected by the authorities on the
ground of delay. Writ petition was filed in this Court one year
after such rejection. In these circumstances, the Court dismissed
the writ petition for approaching the Court belatedly and refused
to follow the orders passed in another petitions by this Court,
which was sought to be extended on the ground that the petitions
were exactly similar to those petitions which were preferred in
another case. No doubt, writ petition was dismissed on the ground
of unexplained inordinate delay, but it would be necessary to
observe that it was not a service-matter. However, the principle of
delay and laches would have some relevance for our purposes as
well.
…………..
22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the
aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the
respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is
given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all
similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore,
the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly
situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not
to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and
woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim
that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence,
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
persons , whether they approached the court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself
extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a
situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and
the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v.
Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On
the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam
holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the
parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly
in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor
and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of
the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their
petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.”
[Emphasis supplied by this Court]
9.Though there is an exception to the defence of latches and delays as
well as the acquiescence, while relying the judgment in the nature of the
judgment in rem, in the case in hand, though the said K.Mariappan is a
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
similarly situated person, the benefit which had been given to him is in the
nature of judgment in personam. Therefore, the exception cannot be involved.
Hence, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order.
10.Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is also closed.
03-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KMI
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government Cooperation,
Food and Consumer Protection Department Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
NVN Natarajan Maaligai,
No. 170 E.V.R. Periyar Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )

WP No. 22283 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP No. 22283 of 2022
AND
WMP NO. 21317 OF 2022
03-09-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 08:09:20 pm )