After Official Letters Indicated 10+ Years’ Service, Madras HC Sends PWD NMR Worker’s Regularisation Claim Back For Fresh Decision

The petitioner, an NMR Mazdoor Grade I, claimed that he had served continuously from 1996 and sought regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.134, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 7 May 2010, which covered NMRs who had completed ten years of service by that date.

Following an earlier direction to consider his representation, the first respondent rejected his claim, finding that he had not completed ten eligible years by 7 May 2010 and disputing earlier service entries.

On remand from a writ appeal, the High Court reconsidered the matter. The petitioner relied on departmental communications dated 14 and 15 May 2012 concerning his length of service; the respondent maintained that he was ineligible.

G.O.Ms.No.134, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 7 May 2010, provides for regularisation of qualifying NMRs who had completed ten years of service by that date.

In judicial review under Article 226, an administrative decision may be set aside where relevant material has not been considered or the decision does not explain why material evidence was rejected.

The writ appeal’s remand direction required the petitioner’s eligibility to be determined on the merits under the relevant Government Orders.

The petitioner also cited Sukendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam and a Full Bench judgment, but the Court’s stated reasoning rested on the departmental communications and the absence of supporting material for the respondent’s contrary service calculation.

The Court noted that the petitioner had produced no material establishing service from 1996, but departmental communications dated 14 and 15 May 2012 indicated more than ten years of service.

The respondent’s rejection relied on a different service calculation, yet the respondent produced no material substantiating that calculation and did not explain why the communications were disregarded.

Because the decision did not address relevant official records or give reasons for disbelieving them, the Court found the rejection unsustainable and directed fresh consideration rather than deciding eligibility itself.

The respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on the merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receiving the order; the writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.