Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Rm. Sundarrajan on 26 July, 2021
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A(MD)Nos.981, 982, 983, 984, 985 and 986 of 2018
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Sivagangai District
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kalayarkovil,
Sivagangai District
..Appellants in W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
Vs.
RM. Sundarrajan
...Respondent in W.A(MD)No.981 of 2018
S. Meenal
...Respondent in W.A(MD)No.982 of 2018
S. Sethu
...Respondent in W.A(MD)No.983 of 2018
A. Premalatha
...Respondent in W.A(MD)No.984 of 2018
K. Raman
...Respondent in W.A(MD)No.985 of 2018
S. Valliammai
...Respondent in W.A(MD)No.986 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
Prayer in W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018: Writ Appeal filed under
Section 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 23.01.2018
passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.24123, 24124, 24125, 24126, 24127 and 24128
of 2017 respectively.
For Appellants : Mr. R. Baskaran
Learned Standing Government Counsel
for Government
For Respondent : Mr. V. Paneer Selvam
COMMONJUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
These Writ Appeals have been filed by the State challenging the
common order in WP(MD)Nos.24123 to 24128 of 2017.
2. The Writ petitions were filed by the respondents herein
challenging the order passed by the third appellant dated 23.08.2017 and
for a direction upon the appellants to fix the scale of pay as per
G.O.Ms.No. 234 dated 10.09.2009 counting their length of service in the
cadre of Elementary School Head Master for Selection Grade and Special
Grade. The learned Writ Court has allowed the writ petition and granted
the relief sought for. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before us by
way of these appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
3. The memorandum of grounds of writ appeals in this batch of
cases would concern a slightly different matter, which was subject matter
of consideration in Review Application (MD)No.35 of 2018 etc. batch,
dated 19.03.2018. Thus, we are required to consider as to whether the
learned Writ Court was right in allowing the writ petitions and granting the
relief as sought for.
4. We have elaborately heard Mr. R. Baskaran, learned
Government Counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Panner Selvam, learned
counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners.
5. Two factors which weighed in our mind to decide the case in
favour of the respondents/writ petitioners are as hereunder:
The Elementary School Head Masters, who are similarly placed as that of
the respondents/writ petitioners, had sought for the benefit of counting
the service as Secondary Grade Teacher for the purpose of computing the
length of service for awarding Special Grade and Selection Grade. The
relief was not granted by the Government and therefore they approached
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and filed OA.Nos.68 of 1997, 177
of 1997 and 5548 of 1998. The said original applications were allowed by
order dated 12.07.2002. The State challenged the said order by filing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
W.P.Nos.29644 of 2003 and 24645 of 2003. Those Writ Petitions filed by
the Government were dismissed by order dated 21.02.2008. Thus, the
order passed by the Administrative Tribunal had attained finality.
Consequently, the Government had to implement the same and by
G.O.Ms.243, School Education Department dated 10.09.2009, the benefit
was granted to the said 33 teachers, who were the applicants before the
Tribunal. The operative portion of the Government order reads as follows:
“flY}h; khtl;lk; Fwp rpg;gho xd;wpaj;jpy; Cuhl;rp xd;wpa
bjhlf;fg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah;fshf gzp g[hpe;J Xa;t[ bgw;w jpU/V/gp/
brhf;fyp';fk; jpU/o/bre;jhkiuf;fz;zd; kw;Wk; 61 egh;fs; 01/06/88 f;F
Kd; gzpahw;wpa fhyj;ij fzf;fpy; bfhz;L bjhlf;fg;gs;sp jiyik
Mrphpah; gjtpapy; rpwg;g[ epiy nfhhp jkpH;ehL epht; hf jPh;g;ghaj;jpy; tHf;F
bjhLj;J ,Ue;jdh;/ mt;tHf;fpy; jkpH;ehL epht; hfj; jPh;g;ghak; mth;fspd;
kDit Vw;W jPh;g;g[ mspj;Js;sJ/ nkw;fhz; jkpH;ehL epht; hfj; jPh;g;gha
jPh;g;ghizia vjph;j;J brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; flY}h; khtl;lj;
bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyuhy; nky;KiwaPL bra;ag;gl;l tHf;fpdk; PJ 21/02/08
md;W tH';fg;gl;l brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w jPh;g;ghizapy; jkpH;ehL
epht; hfj; jPh;g;ghaj;jpy; tH';fg;gl;l cj;jut[ ,WjpahdJ vd bjhptpj;J
js;Sgo bra;Js;sJ. Vdnt 01/06/88 f;F gpd;g[ bjhlf;fg;gs;sp
jiyikahrphpah;fshf gjtp cah;t[ bgw;wth;fSf;F 01/06/88 f;F
Kd;g[ (31/05/88) Koa ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fshft[k; kw;Wk; bjhlf;fg;gs;sp
jiyik Mrphpah;fshft[k; gzpahw;wpa fhyj;ijf; fzf;fpl;L 01/06/88 f;F
Kd;g[ bjhlf;fg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah;fshf gjtp cah;t[ bgw;w ehs;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
Kjy; bjhlf;fgs;sp jiyik Mrphpah; gzpapy; njh;t[ epiy rpwg;g[ epiy
mDkjpj;J Cjpa eph;zak; bra;a murhiz gpwg;gpf;FkhW bjhlf;ff;
fy;yp mYtyh; muir nfhhpa[s;shh;/”
6. The above Government order undoubtedly paved way for
several litigations where similarly placed persons started to claim benefit
under the said Government Order. Certain cases were dismissed on the
ground of delay and latches, certain cases were allowed and we are
informed that the Government has also granted the benefit and
implemented those orders. Be that as it may, the respondent writ
petitioners filed WP(MD) No.15851 of 2013 praying for a direction upon
the appellants to fix the scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.234 by counting the
entire length of service as an Elementary School Headmaster for Selection
Grade and Special Grade. The Writ Petition was disposed of by order
dated 25.09.2013, the operative portion of which reads as follows:
“5. In view of the above, without
expressing any opinion regarding the claim of the
petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of, with a
direction to the respondents to consider the
request of the petitioners for revision of pay as per
G.O.Ms.No.234 of School Education Department,
dated 10.09.2009 and in the light of the orders of
this Court in W.P.No.29644 and 29645 of 2003,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
dated 21.02.2008 and in W.A.No.979 of 2011,
dated 30.09.2011. The petitioners are also
directed to submit the copies of the judgments of
the Division Bench of this court referred to above
along with a copy of this order to the respondents
within a period of fifteen days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents
shall consider the request of the petitioners and
pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve
weeks thereafter. No costs.”
7. Thus in terms of the above direction, the appellant
department was directed to consider the request of the writ petitoners for
revision of pay as per G.O.Ms.234 and in the light of the orders passed in
W.P.Nos.29644 and 29645 of 2003 dated 21.02.2008 and Writ Appeal No.
979 of 2011 dated 30.09.2011. The copies of those judgments and
orders were also directed to be submitted to the department. The order
in W.P.Nos.29644 and 29645 of 2003 was in writ petitions filed by the
department challenging the order of the Tribunal which was dismissed by
order dated 21.02.2008. The operative portion reads as follows:
“ 3. The first respondent in these two
writ petitions approached the Tribunal with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
original applications in O.A.Nos.68 and 177 of
1997, seeking for a similar prayer as was
granted in O.A.No.3745 of 1992 batch of cases
and wanted the relief granted in the said O.A.s
by common order dated 19.03.2002 may be
extended to them also. The Tribunal allowed
the said original applications by following the
earlier order and directed the State
Government to extend the same benefit to the
petitoners therein. As against the said order,
the present writ petitions have been filed by
the State and the State may be vigilant in filing
these writ petitions, since there was no delay.
4. What is to be seen in the present
case is that since the order passed by the
Tribunal has not been challenged by the
petitioners herein, the said order became final
in the batch of cases and that order is binding
on the State. Hence, it is not proper for us now
to go into the merits of the case when the
Tribunal extended the same benefits to the
persons similarly placed as that of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
petitioners. It is not a fit case to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to scrutinize the order
passed by the Tribunal. The writ petitions
stand dismissed. No costs”
8. As mentioned above, S. Arul Swami and others filed W.P(MD)
No.5259 of 2010 which was dismissed by order dated 17.09.2010
primarily on the ground of delay and latches. They filed Writ Appeals in
W.A.(MD).Nos.979 and 986 to 991 of 2011, which were allowed by
judgment dated 30.09.2011. The operative portion reads as follows:
“7. The order of the Divison Bench of this
Court dated 07.07.2011 passed in W.A.No.815 of 2010,
etc., batch reads as follows:
“ It is also a matter of record
that the Government have considered
the claim made by 65 of the retired
employees and the benefits of the earlier
Government orders were extended to
them. The Government order in
G.O.Ms.No.210 School Education (G1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
dated 14.08.2009 clearly supports the
case of the appellants. When it is made
out that the Government have
considered the demand of a section of
erstwhile Headmasters of Elementary
Schools and awarded them selection
grade pursuant to the order passed by
the employees, who have approached
the Court at a belated point of time. The
appellants are aged persons and
ultimately they would be given only the
benefit of re-fixing their pension. The
appellants have served the Education
Department for a long time and at this
point of time, they wanted only a similar
treatment. The Government having
issued orders conferring benefits to the
similarly situated employees cannot be
heard to say that such benefits would
not be given to those who have not
approached the court within a
reasonable time.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
8. The present batch of writ appellants are also
the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions dismissed by
the learned Single Judge of this court on 17.09.2010.
9. We are of the considered view that since the
Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view in
favour of the appellants in the present batch of writ
appeals, the appellants in these writ appeals will be
entitled to the similar relief and accordingly, the order of
the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside insofar
as the writ appellants herein concerned.
10. The writ appeals are allowed with a direction
on the above terms. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.”
9. Therefore, the direction issued in W.P.No.15851 of 2013 is not
a mandamus simplicitor but a direction to consider the request made by
the respondent writ petitioners by taking note of the above referred
decisions. Thus the authority in our view rightly understood the scope of
the direction and fixed the scale of pay by passing order dated
18.11.2014 in Na.Ka.No.2200/A2/2013. A proposal was also sent to the
Accountant General by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, the
fourth respondent, who is the competent authority to fix the scale of pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
Though such was the position, the order dated 18.11.2014 remained only
a paper order. It appears that the respondent writ petitioners filed
Contempt Petition before this court for non implementation of the
directions. This led to the second appellant passing the order dated
23.08.2017 which was impugned in the writ petitions. The only reason
assigned in the order dated 23.08.2017, to deny benefit is by observing
that benefit has already been granted to the respondent writ petitioners
under G.O.No.207. In our considered view, this was the position in
respect of other teachers as well who are similarly placed and that was
never the stand taken by the department at any earlier point of time. In
fact, the fourth appellant, who is the competent authority to fix the scale
of pay had rightly passed the order dated 18.11.2014 but that order
remained only a paper order. The second appellant cannot function as the
appellate authority over the pay fixation order. In the order dated
23.08.2017, there is no mention about as to why the fourth appellant's
order dated 18.11.2014 is incorrect or not sustainable. Therefore , the
Learned Writ Court had rightly allowed the writ petition. Further we note
that the Second Appellant who passed the orders impugned in the Writ
Petitions were present before the Writ Court and the learned Writ Court in
paragraph 4 has recorded that the said incumbent had admitted that the
proceedings dated 23.08.2017 was wrongly passed. Be that as it may, the
facts of the present case clearly show that the respondents writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
petitioners are entitled for the relief. Thus, considering the above reasons,
we find no grounds to interefere with the order passed in the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
[T.S.S., J] [S.A.I., J]
26.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mnr
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.
Copy To:-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Sivagangai District
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Kalayarkovil,
Sivagangai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
and
S.ANANTHI,J.
mnr
ORDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.981 to 986 of 2018
26.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
