Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Vivekanandan on 9 August, 2021
W.A.No.1858 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1858 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.11810 of 2021
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education (Secondary),
College Road, Chennai-6.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Periyakulam,
Theni District. ... Appellants
versus
S.Vivekanandan ... Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the final
order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.7825 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
State Government Counsel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1858 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Government, challenging the
order dated 25.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.7825 of 2013 allowing the writ
petition.
2. The respondent/Writ Petitioner had challenged the proceedings
of the third appellant and sought for a direction to re-fix his salary in the
scale of pay applicable to Head Master from 29.09.1989, and then grant
Selection Grade Pay and Special Grade Pay at the relevant point of time.
3. The third appellant re-fixed the salary of the writ petitioner, vide
proceedings dated 05.04.1999, against which, he had preferred O.A.No.442
of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which originally
granted an interim stay. Later, the same was transferred to this Court and re-
numbered as W.P.No.26074 of 2005. Despite the order of stay granted by the
Administrative Tribunal, as the Writ Petitioner was due to retire on
31.03.2004, without adverting to the order, the third appellant had re-fixed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1858 of 2021
the salary of the writ petitioner and as a corollary, also the pensionary
benefits. In the meanwhile, the said Writ Petition was allowed on 28.02.2011
and the appellants were directed to re-fund the money to the writ petitioner, if
recovery was already made. Though the sum of Rs.77,555/- was recovered
from the writ petitioner and as the sum of Rs.50,000/- payable towards
Provident Fund was withheld for the purpose of recovery on re-fixation of
Selection Grade and Special Grade pay, the fixation was not done by the
appellants. The Writ Court had found that though in the earlier order in
W.P.No.26074 of 2005, this Court had directed the appellants to pay the
Selection Grade and Special Grade to the writ petitioner on the basis of his
promotion and also to refund the money to him, if it was already recovered,
the same has not been done. It is also relevant to note that in the Contempt
petition filed by the Writ Petitioner later, the appellants have also admitted
that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was withheld as provident fund payable to the
writ petitioner and committed to return the same. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge had found that the action of the appellants was per-se
contemptuous and allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to re-
work the calculation by re-fixing the pay of the petitioner in Selection Grade
and Special Grade in the post of Head Master during the year 1989-1999 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1858 of 2021
further based on the calculation, to pay whatever the amounts due to the
petitioner, in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.26074 of 2005.
4. In the light of the above facts, we are at a loss to understand as
to how the writ appeal is filed by the authorities, when they have not even
obeyed the earlier orders passed by this Court. It is also admitted that the
order of the learned Single Judge has also not been complied with till today,
despite passage of more than a year.
5. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal
and accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and the
appellants are directed to calculate the amounts, taking into account the
recovery made by them and also the amounts withheld from the terminal and
pensionary benefits and disburse the amounts to the petitioner, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1858 of 2021
6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected M.P. is closed. No costs.
[P.S.N.,J] [K.R.,J]
09.08.2021
srn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1858 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
srn
W.A.No.1858 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.11810 of 2021
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
