← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/8687/2023disposed of

Orchid Packiamani.R v. The Chief Educational Officer

2023-04-17Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY R.Orchid Packiamani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai - 625 002.

2.The District Educational Officer, (Secondary Education), District Education Office, Madurai - 625 002.

3.The Correspondent, CSI High School, Thirumangalam, Madurai - 625 706.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.01.2023. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.V.N.Arjun, For Mr.N.Vallinayagam For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.01.2023.

2. The petitioner was working in the third respondent School and attained superannuation on 31.03.2017. The contention of the petitioner is that the Teacher Training Institute ought to have granted increment for the year 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 as per proceedings dated 10.04.2016. But the same was not disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner had made so many representations to the respondents 1 and 2. But the petitioner had not received the increased salary for the period from 01.07.2011 to 31.08.2015. The petitioner thereafter approached several authorities including a representation to the Chief Minister Cell on 26.08.2022. The second respondent through communication dated 14.09.2022 intimated that the petitioner's claim of increment was rejected. But the said copy was not furnished to the petitioner. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that 2/5

there are some contradictions and discrepancies in the claim and also in the record that was maintained by the third respondent. The petitioner contended that the third respondent has not disclosed the same as well as the official respondents have not intimated the same to the petitioner describing the nature of the discrepancies and contradictions.

3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the official respondents shall conduct a thorough enquiry regarding to the allegations raised by the petitioner. If the official respondents found maladministration by the third respondent, then the official respondents shall take action under Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act and Rules against the third respondent. The enquiry against the third respondent shall be completed within a period of eight (8) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. As far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, if the records state that the petitioner is entitled to, then after rectification of the said contradictions and discrepancies, the benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3/5

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

17.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai - 625 002.

2.The District Educational Officer, (Secondary Education), District Education Office, Madurai - 625 002.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY, J.

Nsr 17.04.2023 5/5