Madras High Court
M.Palani … vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. ... on 11 August, 2022
W.P. No. 10862 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. 10862 of 2016
M.Palani … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by
the Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Salem District,
Salem – 636 001.
4. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur. ...
Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to
consider the Petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2015 requesting the benefit
of granting Selection/Special Grade scale applicable to the post of Middle
School Headmaster to him by counting the services rendered in the post of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
Secondary Grade Teacher, Primary School Headmaster and B.T. Assistant prior
to 01.06.1988.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Mohanraj
For Respondents : Mr. G.Ameedius, Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard Mr. P.Mohanraj, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. G.Ameedius, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents
and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the
parties.
2. The Petitioner, who was working as teacher in Government Service, has
filed this Writ Petition seeking award of selection grade/special grade 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 14.10.2015 to the Respondents, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
Tamil Nady, School Education Department, Chennai -vs- S.Stanislaus (Order
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of
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 14.10.2015 made by the Petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 210,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
11.03.1987 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be
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 pensionary benefits 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 pension
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
for future months on the due dates; and
(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,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Salem District,
Salem – 636 001.
4. The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
Copy to
The Registrar (Judicial),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
vjt
W.P. No. 10862 of 2016
11.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
