AMMASAI vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 34124 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 34124 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA012156882023}
1. Ammasai
2. Palanichamy
3. Ramasamy
4. Muniyappan
5. Nachimuthu
6. Meenatchi
7. Gurusamy
8. Rajendran
9. Gomathi
10.Kanaga
11.Rajakumari
..Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary To Government,
Highways Department, Chennai 9
2. The Director General
Highways Department,
No. 76 Sardar Vallabaipatel Road,
Guindy Chennai 25
3. The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Erode 638 002
4. The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Gopichettipalayam,
Erode District 638 476
5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Bhavani, Erode
District 638 301
..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 34124 of 2023
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the
petitioners representation dated on 10.03.2023 in the light of the letter in Memo
No. 2/ 07/ A1 dated 28.01.2008 issued by the 5th respondent and direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioners herein in the existing or future vacancies
as Gang Mazdoors in regular time scale of pay in consonance with the orders
passed by this Court in WP. Nos. 911 to 937 / 2009 dated 18.06.2009 which
was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Review Application Nos. 30/
2012 to 37/2012 and 116/2012 to 134/2012 order dated 21.06.2012, 06.08.2012
and confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP in CC Nos. 22523/ 2012 to 22530/
2012 dated 29.07.2013.
For Petitioners: Mr.S.Packiaraj
For Respondents: Mr.V.Tamizhanban,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of
the petitioners dated 10.03.2023 in the light of the letter in Memo No. 2/ 07/ A1
th
dated 28.01.2008 issued by the 5 respondent and direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioners herein in the existing or future vacancies as Gang
Mazdoors in regular time scale of pay in consonance with the orders passed by
this Court in WP. Nos. 911 to 937 / 2009 dated 18.06.2009 which was upheld
by the Division Bench of this Court in Review Application Nos. 30/ 2012 to
37/2012 and 116/2012 to 134/2012 order dated 21.06.2012, 06.08.2012 and
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 34124 of 2023
confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP in CC Nos. 22523/ 2012 to 22530/
2012 dated 29.07.2013.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
rd
been working as a Gang Mazdoor on a daily-wage basis with the 3 respondent
from 1987 onwards. Though there were breaks in service, such breaks in service
were artificial in nature. All of a sudden, the respondents stopped the services of
the petitioner without any valid reason.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the post of
Gang Mazdoor post is equivalent to the post of Office Assistant. Since G.O. Ms.
No. 702 dated 18.06.1981 has been passed in respect of Office Assistants, the
petitioners, in line with the same, are also eligible to have their services
regularised.
4. Per contra, the said contention was vehemently opposed by the learned
Government Advocate, who contended that G.O. (Ms) No. 74, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013, is applicable only to
full-time daily-wage employees/NMRs who were initially appointed on a full-
time basis. In the case in hand, the petitioners were neither appointed on a full-
time basis, nor were they appointed in consultation with the Employment
Exchange to discharge the functions of a post under the Tamil Nadu Basic
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 34124 of 2023
Service.
5. The learned Government Advocate further contended that in order to
have the benefits under the G.O. (Ms) No. 74, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013, the petitioner ought to have completed
ten years of service. Whereas, in the case in hand, the petitioners have not
satisfied the above condition and furthermore they are only part time
employees. Therefore, the question of considering the representation of the
petitioners does not arise.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed during 1987 and that now
they have been been stopped from work. Even according to the petitioners, there
were breaks in service in their duty. Though the petitioners seeks regularisation
in consonance with an existing or a future vacancy, as rightly contented by the
Government Advocate, when there is a specific condition that the employee
should complete period of ten years and that such an employment should be on
a full-time daily wage basis, the petitioners cannot seek any relaxation even
under the order in G.O. (Ms) No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, dated 27.06.2013.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 34124 of 2023
8. In the case in hand, since the petitioners have not completed ten years
of service, and were not appointed through the Employment Exchange. But
were engaged only on a part-time basis. Therefore, they cannot maintain any
claim based upon G.O. (Ms) No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, dated 27.06.2013. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned
Government Advocate, the Honourable Supreme Court has held in various
judgments that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court cannot direct the regularisation of a person unless they are
appointed to a sanctioned post and have been continuously working for a long
time. In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed in a
sanctioned post.
9. In such view of the factual position, the mere entrustment of work to
the petitioner for a particular time, will in no way confer any right upon the
petitioners to seek regularisation. Accordingly, no grounds have been made out
to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 34124 of 2023
SHL
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
SHL
To:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary To Government,
Highways Department, Chennai 9
2. The Director General
Highways Department,
No. 76 Sardar Vallabaipatel Road,
Guindy Chennai 25
3. The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Erode 638 002
4. The Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Gopichettipalayam,
Erode District 638 476
5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
Highways Department, Bhavani,
Erode District 638 301
WP No. 34124 of 2023
30-10-2026
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 34124 of 2023
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )