IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.Nos. 38143 & 34513 of 2006 (T) (O.A.8759 & 9183/1998) 1. E.S. SHANMUGASUNDARAM FISHERIES OVERSEAS CHENNAI. 2. D. ANANDAN FISHERIES OVERSEAS, KANCHEEPURAM ..PETITIONERS in W.P.No.38143 of 2006 1. MOHD. ABDUL KHADER FISHERIES OVERSEER MANJULLARU. THNJAVUR. 2 P. RAMANATHAN FISHERIS OVERSEER THNJAVUR. 3 S KESAVARAMAN FISHERIES OVERSEER VILLUPURAM .. PETITIONERS in W.P.No. 34513 Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006 RESPONDENT in both writ petitions Prayer in both writ petitions. Original application Nos. 8759 and 9183 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal prayer call for records relating to the proceedings of the respondent made in R.C. No. 61723/M4/98 dt 30.9.98 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned and to direct extension of all benefits both service and monetary. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished the original application was received transferred and numbered as writ petitions. For petitioners .. Mr. L. Chandra Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent .. Mr. B. Vijay Government Advocate ORDER Original application Nos. 8759 and 9183 of 1998 were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent made in R.C. No. 61723/M4/98 dt 30.9.98 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned and to direct extension of all benefits both service and monetary. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished the original application was re-transferred and numbered as writ petitions No. 38143 and 34513 of 2006 respectively. 2. In the writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order ousting them from service stating that they cannot be retained in the said post for want of vacancy. Admittedly, there is an order in favour of each one of the petitioners, regularising them in service long before the order ousting them from service was passed. The original applications are filed in the year 1998 challenging the ousting order. The applicants continued in service by an interim order dated 06.11.1998. In the meanwhile, they have superannuated. 3. No reply has been filed by the department. The petitioners were regularised in proceeding R.C.No.65875/S1/89 dated 10.08.1989. Ousting them from service without taking into consideration the order regularising them in service is arbitrary. The impugned orders have been passed without application of mind to the earlier order of regularisation. Without setting aside the order of regularisation in the manner known to law, the petitioners cannot be ousted from services and the impugned proceedings are bad for the aforesaid reason and deserves to be set aside. The Writ petitions are allowed with all consequential benefits. No order as to cost. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. sms https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006 + 1 cc to Govt., Pleader Sr 6923 & 6925 W.P.Nos. 38143 & 34513 of 2006 BK (CO) RH (25.2.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/