W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8576 and 8577 of 2023 W.A(MD)No.1120 of 2023: 1.The Director, Backward Class Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Appellants Vs. 1.A.Krishnammal 2.D.Ramani 3.P.Pangajamathivathani ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9847 of 2014, dated 06.09.2021. For Appellants :Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For Respondents :Mr.G.Chandrasekar 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 W.A(MD)No.1121 of 2023: 1.The Director, Backward Class Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Appellants Vs. S.Jegan Mohini ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1976 of 2015, dated 06.09.2021. For Appellants :Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For Respondent :Mr.V.Manikandan *** COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.) The present writ appeals are filed by the State against the orders dated 06.09.2021 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.9847 of 2014 and 1976 of 2015. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 2. The writ petitions were filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned orders, dated 10.04.2014 and 02.09.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners in the post of Cook with effect from 25.09.1998 on par with similarly appointed persons with all monetary benefits within the time stipulated thereunder. 3. The brief facts as stated in the writ petitions are that the writ petitioners were appointed in the year 1997 as Cook Helper against the permanent vacancy and they were posted on various girls hostels. The writ petitioners in W.P. (MD)No.9847 of 2014 namely, A.Krishnammal, D.Ramani and P.Pankajamathivathani were appointed, vide proceedings, dated 22.09.1997 on consolidated pay and the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1976 of 2015, namely, T.Jeganmohini was appointed on 22.01.1997 on consolidated pay. Initially the consolidated pay fixed as Rs.100/- per month, subsequently enhanced to Rs.500/- per month. The writ petitioners have completed their probation period and were regularized on 31.12.2010 and 31.08.2007 respectively. The contention of the writ petitioners are that they were regularized with effect from 2007, whereas several other persons who were appointed along with the writ petitioners were regularized 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 with effect from the date of appointment on completion of 10 years of service. The said regularisation has treated the writ petitioners differently, hence discriminatory besides defying logic. Hence, the writ petitions were filed. 4.The 2nd respondent in the writ petitions has filed counter affidavit stating that one Arumugam and K. Muthiah were regularized prior to the writ petitioners' service regularization, since an earlier vacancy arose in Mens' Hostel at Kombukaranenthal and Maravamangalam Mens' Hostel, in view of creation of new hostel. As far as Muthuramailingam is concerned, a vacancy arose due to the death of Asirvatham at Puduvayal Mens' Hostel. Hence, according to seniority among the list from men cooks, their service were regularized under time scale of pay. As per proceedings in Na.Ka.No.B4/13407/06, dated 18.12.2006, issued by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, it is directed that men should be appointed in Men’s Hostel and women should be appointed in Women’s hostel. Hence a separate seniority list was maintained and based on the seniority and as and when vacancy arose, they were regularized. 5. After considering the rival claims, the Writ Court has held that it is clear discrimination and allowed the writ petitions. The Writ Court directed to 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 regularize the writ petitioners in the post of Cook with effect from 25.09.1998 on par with the similarly appointed persons with all consequential monetary benefits. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. The contention of the appellants is that a separate seniority is maintained for male cooks and female cooks since it is directed by the Government to appoint male cooks in boy’s hostels and female cooks in girl’s hostels. When a new boy’s hostel was started in Sivagangai District, the cooks Arumugam and Muthiah were appointed in the said two posts as per the seniority list maintained for male cooks and they were regularized from the date of establishment of the new boy’s hostel. As far as the writ petitioners being female cooks, their seniority list is maintained separately and they were appointed in time scale of pay after they were appointed in the regular vacancy. Therefore, they cannot be treated on par with Arumugam and Muthiah as they form different class of cooks and they were appointed in boy’s hostel. The writ petitioners cannot seek regularization prior to their appointment in the regular vacancy in the girl’s hostel. Admittedly, they were appointed in the regular vacancy as per the seniority list maintained separately which form separate class. Hence, they are entitled to regularization only after appointment in regular vacancy. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 7. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents herein / writ petitioners is when the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize all the cooks serving under the Backward Class Welfare Department, they are entitled to be treated on par. Further, the male cooks are granted regularization in the year 1998 itself, thereby, they were brought under the pension scheme. Since the female cooks were regularized after 01.04.2003 (they were appointed in the year 2007), they were brought under CPF scheme. Thereby, they were deprived from their accrued right to get pension for their service. 8. After hearing the rival arguments, this Court is of the considered opinion when the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize the service of the cooks in Backward Class Welfare Department, then all persons ought to have been granted regularisation from same date and the benefits ought to have been disbursed from the same date. At least, if not for the monetary benefits, their service benefits ought to have been granted. When all the persons were appointed on the same, there cannot be any discriminatory in regularisation. If granted the same would be against Article 14. 9. Generally, as and when the permanent vacancy arises the Government 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 employee is entitled to regularisation in the said vacancy and the benefits would accrue from the date of joining the said post. In the present case due to establishment of new hostel for boys, the persons in the seniority list maintained for the male cooks were granted regularization along with monetary benefits, thereby the government had created posts. But there cannot be any discrimination in granting regularisation as well. Either the Government ought to have created new posts or constructed new hostels for girls. And such creation of new posts and construction of new hostels may not be possible due to various reasons. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion if the writ petitioners were granted notional regularization for the service benefits alone, the same would meet the ends of justice. 10. Therefore, this Court is modifying the impugned orders to the extent that the writ petitioners are entitled to service benefits including pensionary benefits from 25.09.1998. The said notional fixation shall be carried out and the respondents herein / writ petitioners may be granted all the terminal benefits including pensionary benefits. However, it is made clear that the respondents herein / writ petitioners are not entitled to salary for the said period and they are entitled to only service benefits. The pensionary benefits shall be paid within a 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is any delay in payment, the appellants herein / respondents therein shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of delay alone. 11. With the above said observations, the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.] 05.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Tmg To: 1.The Director, Backward Class Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 J.NISHA BANU, J. and S.SRIMATHY, J. Tmg W.A(MD)Nos.1120 and 1121 of 2023 05.03.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis