Madras High Court
L.Muralidharan … vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 August, 2022
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
L.Muralidharan … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4. The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Koduvai,
Tiruppur District. ...
Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to
consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2016 in
regard to award of selection grade in the promotion post of B.T. Assistant in the
light of G.O. Ms. No. 210 P& AR (Per-S) dated 11.03.1987 within a stipulated
time as fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Thirupathi
For Respondents : Mr. M.R.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard Mr. V.Thirupathi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. M.R.Gokulakrishnan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the
pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner, who is working as teacher in Government Service, has
filed this Writ Petition seeking award of selection grade in the promotional post
of B.T. Assistant in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 210, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (Per.S) Department dated 11.03.1987 issued by the Government of
Tamil Nadu for which he had made a representation dated 30.03.2016 to the
Third Respondent, but no action had been taken in that regard.
3. It is brought to notice that in respect of persons similarly placed to the
Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nady, School Education Department, Chennai -vs- S.Stanislaus (Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
dated 03.01.2019 in W.A. No. 34 of 2017 etc., batch) has upheld their claim for
the grant of the said benefit under that Governmental Order. In this context,
reference must also be made to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC
347], where it has been held as follows:-
"22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees
is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be
applied in service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates
that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly.
Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other
similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier,
they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that
the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence,
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person.
Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the
decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court
was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall
accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is
stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out
from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to
get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have
to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches
and delays or acquiescence."
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, the obligation is cast upon the
concerned authorities to have on their own accord extended the benefit to all
similarly placed persons, if they are eligible for the same.
4. In such circumstances, this Court without expressing any view on the
correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner, passes the
following order:-
(i) the concerned authority shall immediately consider the representation
dated 30.03.2016 made by the Petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 210,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department dated
11.03.1987 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
entitled for the benefits claimed;
(ii) if it is found that any details or supporting documents satisfying the
eligibility criteria for the benefits claimed have not been produced, the
deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner
requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 15
clear working days in that regard;
(iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements thereafter, an
enquiry shall be conducted affording opportunity of personal hearing to
the Petitioner to explain his position in that regard;
(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions
raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken
communicated to the Petitioner by 31.12.2022 under written
acknowledgment;
(v) if the Petitioner is found entitled to the claim made, the eligible amount of
arrears of differential amount of pay along with working-sheet showing
its calculation, shall be disbursed within a period of three months from
the date of passing of such order, apart from revised pay for future
months on the due dates; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
(vi) the report of completion of the aforesaid exercise shall be filed before the
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
In fine, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No costs.
11.08.2022
vjt
Index: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy by 25.08.2022.
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4. The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Koduvai,
Tiruppur District.
Copy to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
The Registrar (Judicial),
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
vjt
W.P. No. 39417 of 2016
11.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
