IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 09.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P. NO.34491 OF 2006 in OA 10519/98 V. THANGACHAMY .. PETITIONER Vs 1 STATE OF T.N. REP. BY ITS SECY. REVENUE DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE CH-09. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION CHENNAI-5. 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR DINDIGUL. .. RESPONDENTS PRAYER: Writ Petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A. No.10519 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in his proceedings letter No.22147/Pani 8(1)/98-3 dated 29-9-1998 and setaside the said order dated 29-9-1998 and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioner from his initial date of appointment of 6-8-69 with all consequential service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ganesan For Respondents : Mr. S. Siva Shanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as O.A. On 6.8.1969 in the Taluk Office, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District. He was regularly ousted from service and reposted from time to time. In the year 1996, under G.O.No. 583, Revenue Department, dated 3.7.1996, his appointment was regularised with effect from 7.2.1979 and not from the date of his initial appointment dated 6.8.1969. After issuance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Government Order, the petitioner made a representation within two months to redress his grievance. The said representation was rejected on 28.9.1998 stating that it is a belated representation. The order of rejection is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The fact remains that the petitioner was originally appointed on 6.8.1969 and there has been some break in service. The order of regularisation has been passed under the G.O. referred to above on 3.7.1996 and he was regularised with effect from 7.2.1979. His grievance is that he should be regularised with effect from 6.8.1969. Such grievance has not been redressed by the Government. A mere statement that the representation is made belatedly cannot be accepted in the present case as the representation has been made within two months from the date of the Government Order dated 3.7.1996. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the petitioner's plea that the rejection of the representation is without application of mind. Therefore the rejection order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Government for re- consideration of the representation dated 6.9.1996 on merits. The petitioner is entitled to make further representation for redressal of the grievance and the same shall also be considered by the appropriate authority within a reasonable time, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. This writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1 THE SECY. REVENUE DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE CH-09. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION CHENNAI-5. 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR DINDIGUL. +1cc to Govt.Pleader Sr 8554 BK(CO) km/25.2. W.P.NO.34491 OF 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/