Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To ... vs R.Velambal on 26 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208 of 2018, etc. (batch cases)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208, 228, 49, 1163 of 2018, 1250 of 2013 and 227 of 2018
and
W.P.(MD)Nos.7983 of 2014, 8012 of 2017, 6907 to 6910 of 2014, 7415 of 2013,
7417 of 2013, 12464 of 2014, 7419 of 2013, 6206 to 6209 of 2014, 10440 of
2009, 12446 of 2014, 4664 to 4666 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.2 of 2013 and 1 of 2014 and 1 of 2014 and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1247, 1248, 1092, 8352 and 257 of 2018 and 6192 of 2017
W.A.(MD)No.208 of 2018
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education (G1) Department,
Chennai.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Collectorate,
Karur, Karur District.
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Municipal Complex,
Asath Road, Karur-1 ... Appellants
versus
R.Velambal ... Respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/5
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208 of 2018, etc. (batch cases)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the
order dated 17.04.2014 made in W.P.No.20176 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
The issue involved in all the appeals and writ petitions is relating to
reckoning of the service rendered by them before 01.06.1988 for the purpose of
fixation of Special Grade and Selection Grade of the respondents/writ petitioners,
who were initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers and thereafter, they
were promoted as Tamil Teachers and Middle School Headmasters respectively.
2. Though the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants contended that the question of Selection Grade/Special Grade will
have to be considered in a particular post and certainly not on the promotional
post, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted
that the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and Middle School Headmaster were
inter-changeable. Though promotion orders were passed, the emoluments were
the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/5
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208 of 2018, etc. (batch cases)
3. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners relied upon
the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.279 and 280 of
2020, dated 18.08.2020, in the case of the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education (G1) Department, Chennai and others vs. M.Selvaraj,
wherein, considering the earlier orders passed by this Court, subsequent to the
Full Bench decision of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu represented by
the Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600
009 and others Vs. G.Eswaran and others reported in (2017) 2 MLJ 257 (FB),
relied on by the appellants, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.279 and
280 of 2020, held in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners.
4. The contentions raised in the present appeals were also considered
thereunder, including the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of
Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary, School Education
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 and others Vs. G.Eswaran
and others reported in (2017) 2 MLJ 257 (FB),
5. In such view of the matter, the Writ Appeals are dismissed and the
Writ Petitions are allowed, directing the official respondents to extend the benefit
of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009 to the writ
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/5
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208 of 2018, etc. (batch cases)
petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
26.02.2021
ogy
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/5
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208 of 2018, etc. (batch cases)
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
ogy
W.A.(MD)Nos. 208, 228, 49, 1163 of 2018,
1250 of 2013 and 227 of 2018
and
W.P.(MD)Nos.7983 of 2014, 8012 of 2017,
6907 to 6910 of 2014, 7415 of 2013, 7417 of 2013,
12464 of 2014, 7419 of 2013, 6206 to 6209 of 2014,
10440 of 2009, 12446 of 2014, 4664 to 4666 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.2 of 2013 and 1 of 2014 and
1 of 2014 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1247, 1248,
1092, 8352 and 257 of 2018 and 6192 of 2017
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
