C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.11.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN C.M.P.(MD)Nos.16922, 16923, 16925, 16927, 16929, 18219 & 18307 of 2025 in W.A(MD)SR Nos.89016, 89019, 89022, 89023, 89024, 94935 & 94943 of 2025 The Joint Commissioner (ST), Erode State Tax Division, Commercial Taxes Buildings, No.1, Brough Road, Erode – 638 001. ... Petitioner/Appellant in all C.M.Ps' Vs. N.Logambal ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.16922/2025 S.Prema ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.16923/2025 P.Rajamani ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.16925/2025 K.Vasantha ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.16927/2025 R.Swaminathan ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.16929/2025 K.Mallika ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.18219/2025 M.Valarmathy ... Respondent in C.M.P(MD)No.18307/2025 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., PRAYER:- Petitions filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act r/w Order 41 Rule 3A of C.P.C, to condone the delay of 527 & 547 days in filing the above Writ Appeals. PRAYER:- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.9597 to 9603 of 2022 dated 05.04.2024 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.J.Pooventherarajan COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) These petitions are filed by the Joint Commissioner, Erode Tax State Division, seeking condonation of delay of 527 and 547 days respectively in filing the writ appeals. 2.The delay is sought to be explained in a single line stating that 'the delay is due to administrative reasons'. The petitioner states that after examining the relevant records, he obtained legal opinion and directions to file appeals were received from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and that there was a delay in obtaining formal sanction due to administrative reasons. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., 3.We are not convinced that any justification whatsoever has been made out for the delay. The delay is substantial and the petitioners ought to have made out a case for such a significant delay is occasioned. Hence, we are disinclined to consider the plea for condonation and rejecting these cases. 4.Incidentally, a batch of writ petitions have been filed in W.P(MD)No.6813 of 2023 etc., batch was allowed on 19.09.2023. As against the petitioners in that batch, the petitioner herein filed Writ Appeals in W.A(MD)No.1974 of 2024 etc., batch, that have been dismissed on merits by the Division Bench dated 05.11.2024, after considering all the relevant materials. 5.The operative portion of the order reads as follows: '7. The only ground raised by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is that G.O.Ms.No.152 enables for inclusion of the service period of those employees with Kadhi Board, only for the limited purpose of calculating the pensionary services and not otherwise and therefore, the award of selection/special grade of pay was rightly declared to be illegal and the consequential recovery was ordered by the appellant and thereby sought for setting aside the orders of the writ Court. 8. We do not agree with such a submission, since G.O.Ms.No.152, which is an amendment to the earlier 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., G.O.Ms.No.154, extends service protection simpliciter, as well as for inclusion of service period of any employee G.O.Ms.No.152 in this regard is self explanatory, which reads as follows:/ "jkpo;ehL fju; fpuhkj; njhopy; thupaj;jpypUe;J gpwJiwfs;/nghJj;Jiw epWtdq;fs;/jd;dhl;rp cupik ngw;w epWtdq;fs; kw;Wk; Fokq;fspy; <h;j;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLk; Copah;fSf;F rk;gs ghJfhg;G mspg;gJld; (Pay protection)> mtu;fSf;F gzpg;ghJfhg;Gk; (Service protection) mspf;fyhk;. NkYk;> mg;gzpahsu;fs; thupaj;jpy; gzpahw;wpa gzpf;fhyj;ij ghJfhf;Fk; tifapy; thupag; gzpf;fhyq;fis mtu;fs; gzpGupAk; Jiwapd; gzpf;fhyj;Jld; Nru;j;J Xa;ëjpag; gad;fSf;F fzf;fpl;Lf; nfhs;szk;. NkYk; mg;gzpahsu;fs; Xa;T ngWk;NghJ gzpaku;j;jg;gl;l muRJiwfNs Xa;T+jpag; gad;fis njhFg;G epjpapypUe;J toq;fyhk;." 9. When the employees of Kadhi Board were ordered to be absorbed in other Government departments, G.O.Ms.No.154 came to be passed with a specific clause that these employees will have the benefit of pay protection, but cannot be extended with service protection. However, G.O.Ms.No.152 brought forth an amendment to G.O.Ms.No. 154, by incorporating service protection also, as evident in the aforesaid extract. The second portion of the Government order clarifies that the service rendered by these employees in the Kadhi Board should also be included for calculating the pensionary services. Thus, all the erstwhile employees of Kadhi Board were ultimately extended with pay protection, service protection and pensionary benefits by calculating their service period rendered at Kadhi Board. We are not in a position to give any other meaning to G.O.Ms.No.152, apart from what has been categorically stated therein. It is for this reason that we have held that we do not agree with the ground raised by the learned Special Government Pleader. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., 10. The learned Single Judge had also rightly considered the intention of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 152 and had allowed the writ petitions. This apart, the learned Single Judge had also placed reliance on the decision in a similar writ petition, in which a reference has also been made to the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) [2015 (4) SCC 324] and held that recovery from Group C and Group D employees is impermissible in law. It would be pertinent to point out here that the Supreme Court in White washer's case has held that recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period of excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued, is also impermissible in law, which proposition would also apply to the facts in the present cases. 11. In the light of these findings and observations, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.' 6.Hence and in light of the detailed discussions above, these petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeals are rejected at SR stage itself. No costs. [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 25.11.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., To The Joint Commissioner (ST), Erode State Tax Division, Commercial Taxes Buildings, No.1, Brough Road, Erode – 638 001. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P(MD)No.16922 of 2025 and etc., DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ps C.M.P.(MD)Nos.16922, 16923, 16925, 16927, 16929, 18219 & 18307 of 2025 in W.A(MD)SR Nos.89016, 89019, 89022, 89023, 89024, 94935 & 94943 of 2025 25.11.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis