J.Mohaideen Beer Ali v. The District Collector

ORDER This petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 21.05.2026, seeking to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to extend to the petitioner the very same service and monetary benefits granted pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.3842 of 2018 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.The petitioner was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer on

14.02.2009 and continuously served in the Revenue Department until his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. His services were regularised by proceedings dated 02.03.2016. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.428, Revenue Department, dated 26.12.2017, fixing the date of regularisation as 02.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said Government Order, similarly placed Village Administrative Officers challenged the same before this Court in W.P No.3842 of 2018 and batch, seeking extension of service and monetary benefits from the date of their initial appointment. This Court, by order dated 28.04.2022, allowed the batch of writ petitions and declared the entitlement of the petitioners therein to the consequential monetary and service benefits. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have implemented the said judgment and extended the benefits to several similarly placed employees. Page3 of 6

2.1.Being identically situated, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.11.2025 seeking extension of the very same benefits. However, the third respondent, by the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5427/2022/A2, dated 21.05.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that he was not one of the petitioners in W.P No.3842 of 2018 and batch, without examining his entitlement on merits. The impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, having extended the benefits of the judgment to other similarly placed employees, cannot deny the same benefits to the petitioner merely on the ground that he was not a party to the earlier writ proceedings. The law declared by this Court is binding upon the authorities and ought to be uniformly applied to all employees who are identically situated. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order and for a consequential direction to extend to him the same service and monetary benefits granted pursuant to the judgment in W.P No.3842 of 2018 and batch.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4.The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated

21.05.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent, in and by which the 3rd respondent has declined to grant the relief of extending the salary applicable for the regular Page4 of 6 employee from the date of regularisation. The only ground on which the relief has been denied, is on account of the fact that the petitioner was not a party in the writ proceedings in W.P No.31891 of 2018 and batch cases. The 3rd respondent has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was also similarly placed to the 53 candidates, whose services had been regularised and the monetary benefits have also been given from the date of regularisation. The petitioner had been appointed as a Village Administrative Officer by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 14.02.2009 and was regularised into service by the 2nd respondent on 02.03.2016.

5.The grievance of the similarly placed persons was that monetary benefits have not been given from the date on which they have been regularised, but was given at a later point in time. They had approached this Court by filing W.P No.3842 of 2018 etc., and this Court had passed the following order: "8.The result of the foregoing discussion is that the petitioners are entitled to the monetary benefits from the date of their regularization and it shall be incumbent upon the respondents to make payment of such differential amount due along with a working sheet showing the calculation to the respective petitioners under written acknowledgment and file a report of compliance bt

29.07.2022 before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court". Page5 of 6

¶6The case on hand is identical. Once the issue has been answered in favour of the employee in a connected matter, the same benefit has to be extended to the similarly placed employee. The rejection on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier writ petition is absolutely erroneous and cannot be sustained.

7.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the same service and monetary benefits granted pursuant to the orders in W.P No.3842 of 18 batch, to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 07-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Uma To

¶1The District Collector office of the Collectorate, Namakkal District.

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal District.

¶3The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. Page6 of 6

P.T.ASHA, J. Uma 07-08-2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA J.Mohaideen Beer Ali S/o.Jainuel Abidin, No.1/51A, Vinayagar kovil street, Kejjalnaickenpatti, Salem Taluk and Salem District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Office of the Collectorate, Namakkal District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal District. 3. The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5427/2022/A2 dated 21.05.2026, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend to the petitioner the very same service and monetary benefits granted pursuant to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.3842 of 2018 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Rajakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Srinivasan for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader Page2 of 6