Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State vs T. Arumugam on 16 June, 2025
1
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15692/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-02-2025
in WA No. 824/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
THE STATE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
T. ARUMUGAM Respondent(s)
IA No. 137295/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT; IA No. 137296/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
WITH
SLP(C) No. 16350/2025 (XII)
IA No. 142047/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT; IA No. 142048/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 16-06-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
[PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balaji Subramanian, AAG
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Perused the impugned order.
Signature Not Verified
3. The respondent-employee was appointed against one of the 86
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.06.17
14:57:49 IST
Reason:
sanctioned posts of part-time sweeper in the year 1997.
4. He moved the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking
2
direction for regularisation.
5. The services of the respondent employee were terminated in the
year 2018.
6. The High Court, after considering the entirety of the facts
and circumstances as emanating from record and while placing
reliance on a full bench Judgment of Madras High Court in the case
of M. Sivappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 2024(2) CTC 1, directed the
petitioner State to regularise the services of the respondent. The
State of Tamil Nadu has approached this Court by way of this
special leave to appeal seeking to question the legality and
validity of the judgment dated 20th February, 2025 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
7. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned standing counsel for the State and have gone through the
impugned judgment and the material placed on record.
8. The High Court primarily based its conclusions on the full
Bench judgment in the case of M. Sivappa (supra). It is not in
dispute that the respondent employee was appointed against one of
the 86 posts enumerated in the special Rules for Tamil Nadu basic
services. He continuously served the State without a demur for a
period of almost 21 years whereafter his services were
unceremoniously terminated.
9. We, therefore, feel that the questions involved in these
petitions have no parity with the pending matter in the case of
Director of School Education v. Ellammal, [SLP (C) No. 4575 of
2022], on which reliance was heavily placed by learned counsel for
the State.
3
10. The full Bench judgment in the case of M. Sivappa (supra) has
not been challenged any further which fact was admitted by Mr.
Balaji Subramanian, learned AAG, during the course of arguments.
11. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere
in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The special leave
petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merit leaving the
question of law, if any, open.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (SAPNA BANSAL) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)