V.Thenmozhi v. The Secretary To The Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.Nos.50518 and 50519 of 2025 V.Thenmozhi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Secretary to the Government, Finance (Pay-Cell) Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

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

4. The District Education Officer (Primary), District Education Office, Cuddalore, 1/6

5. The Block Educational Officer, Kumaratchi, Kumaratchi Union, Kattumannarkoil Taluk,

6. The Secretary cum/Correspondent, Ramakrishna Aided Elementary School, Kumaratchi, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, ..... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relates to the proceedings of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.2285/Aa3/2009, dated 23.01.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher from the actual date of appointment i.e. 20.04.2009, based on which revise the scale of pay in Pay Bank-1 at Rs.8,370/- + Rs.2,800/- as a revised basic scale of pay of Rs.11,170/- as detailed in Table No.10 of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009 with consequential attendant and monetary benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader (for R1 & R3 to R5) 2/6

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by the fourth respondent, thereby the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 01.06.2009.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and third to fifth respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was appointed in the sixth respondent School on 20.04.2009. Thereafter, her appointment was sent for approval. The fourth respondent, by order dated 23.01.2010, approved her appointment with effect from 01.06.2009. After a lapse of 15 years, the petitioner has now challenged the order of approval on the ground that the fourth respondent ought to have approved her appointment from the date of her original appointment, i.e., 20.04.2009. She contends that because of this, she has suffered monetary loss.

3/6

4. However, the petitioner has slept over the matter for the past 15 years and did not question the date of approval as fixed by the fourth respondent. Now after a period of 15 years, she has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition challenging the impugned order. Therefore, though there is no statutory limitation for filing a Writ Petition, the order impugned ought to have been challenged within a reasonable time. Since, the petitioner has failed to do so, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches.

5. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 21.11.2025 Index:Yes/No kv 4/6

To

1. The Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Secretary to the Government, Finance (Pay-Cell) Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

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

4. The District Education Officer (Primary), District Education Office, Cuddalore,

5. The Block Educational Officer, Kumaratchi, Kumaratchi Union, Kattumannarkoil Taluk,

6. The Secretary cum/Correspondent, Ramakrishna Aided Elementary School, Kumaratchi, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, 5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

kv 21.11.2025 6/6