Madras High CourtWP/15441/2015dismissed

M.Madan v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

2025-06-18Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.No.15441 of 2015

1. M.Madan

2. C.Krishnan

3. A.Jaya Arokiasamy

4. A.Sagitha Begam

5. K.Saroja

6. G.Kesavan

7. G.Rajendiran

8. S.Ganapathy

9. S.Aptha Begam

10. D.Nagalingam

11. K.Abdul Rasith

12. G.Amalarpavam

13. R.Chandran

14. R.K.Sigamani

15. K.B.Raman

16. S.Rathinam

17. P.Kuppusamy

18. R.Nallaiyan

19. K.Marimuthu

20. M.Murugesan

21. S.Muniraj

22. I.Urkalan

23. Murugesan

24. R.Varadarasan

25. V.Ekambaram

26. T.Shanmugam

27. S.Ramar

28. S.P.Shanmugam

29. L.Venkatesan

30. N.Subramaniyan

31. M.Vekatesaiah

32. G.Narayana Reddy

33. K.E.S.Brunda Kumar

34. A.Kothanda Ramaiah

35. M.Munirathnappasetty

36. K.Alimelamma

37. N.Sathyanarayana

38. K.Sreenivasalu Naidu

39. T.Gopalappa

40. V.Rajareddy

41. M.Kalliappan

42. G.V.Pappaiah

43. H.N.Balakrishnamurthy

44. B.N.Nanjundappa

45. G.Chellammal

46. R.Balakrishnan

47. K.Suriyagandhi

48. V.S.Kanniappan

49. M.Ragothaman

50. P.Krishnamoorthy

51. S.Jagadeesan

52. R.Jayapalan

53. M.Gopalakrishnan

54. K.Sarthar Beig

55. P.J.Janakiraman

56. G.Eagambaram

57. P.M.Chinnakannan

58. P.Jagadeesan

59. Manivannan

60. D.Joseph

61. N.L.Natesan

62. P.N.Rangasamy

63. P.Manimegalai

64. P.Athoyee

65. N.Muthusamy

66. P.Kumarasamy

67. A.Kannammal

68. A.Rajarathinam

69. A.Periyasamy

70. Mohamed Jaguruddin

71. J.Vilsonmanickam

72. D.Thanjappan

73. M.Natesan ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem, Salem District.

5. The District Elementary Education Officer, Vellore, Vellore District.

6. The District Elementary Education Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

7. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

8. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

9. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Bargur, Krishnagiri District.

10. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Salem (Rural), Salem District.

11. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Alangayam, Vellore District.

12. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thimiri, Vellore District.

13. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

14. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadayampatti, Salem District.

15. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Nemili, Vellore District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceeding bearing letter No.38392/eP/t/2(1)/2013, dated 31.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioners service rendered in the Higher Grade post along with Secondary Grade post for awarding Selection Grade / Special Grade / Special Grade pay and revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Muthukumaran for Mr.V.Thirupathi For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.Akila Rajendran

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to proceeding of the first respondent in letter No.38392/eP/t/2(1)/2013, dated 31.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioners service rendered in the Higher Grade post along with Secondary Grade post for awarding Selection Grade / Special Grade / Special Grade pay and revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners accordingly.

2. The petitioners herein who were initially appointed as Higher grade teachers during the period from 1967 to 1970, were all promoted to Secondary grade teachers subsequently, within a period of three to four years of their service and thereafter all the petitioners herein have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation during the years 2001 and 2007. It was thereafter in the year 2009, the petitioners on coming to know that certain other similarly situated persons who were initially appointed as Higher Grade Teachers / Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teachers have made a claim for counting of the service rendered by them in the post of Higher Grade Teachers as service in the post of secondary grade teacher and got relief from this Court in the year 2009, the

petitioners started making a similar claim by submitting the representation for the first time in the year 2009. The said representation was considered by the respondents and the same was rejected by passing an order dated 31.12.2013 which is impugned in these Writ Petitions. Thus, it is evident that the relief that was sought for in the present Writ Petitions relates back to the period 1970-1974, i.e., about three decades old. Though the petitioners have cause of action for making such a claim as early as during 1970s, no such claim was made by the petitioners and they also retired from service during the years 2001-2007. It is only on coming to know about the relief granted to certain similarly placed persons, the petitioners started making such claim.

3. An identical matter came up for consideration before two different benches of this Court in W.P.Nos.24047 to 24050 of 2015 and W.P.No.1879 of 2017 wherein the coordinate benches have come to the conclusion that the relief sought for in the said Wit Petitions is suffering from latches and declined to entertain the same. In W.P.No.24047 to 24050 of 2015 it is observed as under:

7. Beyond the facts and circumstances, the petitioners were admittedly appointed as Higher Grade Teachers during the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969,

1970, 1973, 1977 and 1983 respectively and they were promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1978 respectively. They were further promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmasters and retired. They have approached this Court only after retirement and more so, after a lapse of several years. Thus, the petitioners have slept over their right and now approaching the Court belatedly. Thus, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected even on the ground of latches. On merits also, the petitioners have not established that they are entitled for the retrospective benefit of counting the period of services rendered by them in the post of Higher Grade Services. They were promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers long back during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1978 respectively and thus, the claim at this length of time deserves no merit consideration.

4. Similarly, in W.P.No.1879 of 2017, it is observed as under:

3. It is complained by the respondents in their counter affidavit that this claim has been made by the petitioner nearly after 30 years after the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 15.09.1998 and after 10 years after the date of his retirement from service. Probably the petitioner has obtained ideas from some of his colleague who have benefited. But the petitioner having slept over for 40 years, cannot be now granted such privilege that too, for a period of just three months. He should be satisfied with the services he has rendered as teacher and to gain more satisfaction, it would be advisable that he goes over to some Children Home or Senior Citizen Home and educate the children who are there in the Children Home about his experiences and shares his experiences with the senior citizens. That would be more satisfying than initiating a litigation seeking additional pay for three months.

5. This Court does not see any reason to take a different view from the view already taken by the coordinate benches of this Court. In the light of above, this Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No costs.

18.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No : Yes / No vum To:

1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.