Madras High Court
B.Rajeswaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 February, 2022
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
B.Rajeswaran .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass
orders for revision of pay and other retirement benefits from the date of
retirement on 30.05.2016 by considering the services rendered by the
petitioner in St.Paul's Matric Higher Secondary School from 02.04.1984 to
04.12.1989, in the light of order passed in G.O.Ms.No.143, Education (V2)
Department dated 30.01.1987 and the orders passed in W.P.No.7627 of 2006
dated 01.04.2013 by considering the representation submitted by the
petitioner dated 08.09.2016 and 03.05.2017 with all consequential and other
attendant benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Mandamus directing the
respondents to pass orders for revision of pay and other retirement benefits
from the date of retirement on 30.05.2016 by considering the services
rendered by the petitioner in St.Paul's Matric Higher Secondary School from
02.04.1984 to 04.12.1989, in the light of order passed in G.O.Ms.No.143,
Education (V2) Department dated 30.01.1987 and the orders passed in
W.P.No.7627 of 2006 dated 01.04.2013 by considering the representation
submitted by the petitioner dated 08.09.2016 and 03.05.2017 with all
consequential and other attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Post Graduate Assistant
(Maths) on 06.03.1984 in St.Paul's Matric Higher Secondary School, Neyveli,
with time scale of pay. While so, he was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Maths)
in Thiru Kamaraj Municipal Higher Secondary School, Villupuram, through
Teachers Recruitment Board, vide proceedings dated 30.11.1989 and he
joined the post on 04.12.1989 and subsequently, promoted as P.G. Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
(Maths) on 23.12.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as
Headmaster in the year 2009 and transferred to Government Higher
Secondary School, Sangeethamangalam, Villupuram District in the year 2013.
3. While so, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and
retired from service on 30.05.2016 and he was settled with all retiral and
pensionary benefits. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the services
rendered by him in St.Pauls Matric Higher Secondary School from
02.04.1984 to 04.02.1989 was not taken into consideration for service and
pensionary benefits. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on
G.O.Ms.No.37, Education Department dated 05.01.1983 which stipulates
that service rendered in a recognized unaided schools can be taken into
consideration for fixation of pay and pension and based on the same,
G.O.Ms.No.143, Education (V2) Department dated 30.01.1987 came to be
passed, in and by which one Rev.Fr.Stanislaus M.Fernandez, Headmaster,
St.Bade's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Madras was granted the
benefit of pay fixation and pension by counting the services rendered in the
recognized unaided institution. Following the said Government Order, a writ
petition was filed by a similar placed person in W.P.No.7267 of 2006 and vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
order dated 01.04.2013, this Court directed the respondents to consider the
services rendered by the petitioner in Matriculation School in respect of
fixation of pay and pensionary benefits within a stipulated time. Based on the
aforesaid Government Order as well as the order passed by this Court, the
petitioner has submitted a representation to the third respondent on
08.09.2016, but so far no order has been passed and hence, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition.
4. Mr.V.Nanmaran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents submitted that the order dated 01.04.2013 in W.P.No.7627 of
2006 has been challenged in W.A.No.1267 of 2014 and W.A.No.40 of 2015,
wherein a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 05.07.2018, has
elaborately considered the aforesaid Government Order and observed as
follows:
“11. We have considered the rival submissions. It is
unfortunate that the decision in S.Devakadashams case, referred
to supra, wherein the validity of G.O.Ms.No.314 dated
12.12.1999 was upheld, was not brought to the notice of the
Division Bench which subsequently considered the very same
issue in Gabriel Jelestins case. While the judgment of the
Division Bench in S.Devakadashams Case, takes into account
the impact of the Government Orders vis-a-vis the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, and
the Rules made there under, the subsequent judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
Division Bench proceeds, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.18 and
G.O.Ms.No.143. We are constrained to point out that in a later
judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court in K.Pitchai v.
The State of TamilNadu made in WP (MD) No.20326 of 2013
dated 28.02.2018, has after referring to the various Government
Orders and found that the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.143, Education (D2) Department, dated 30.01.1987
does not exist at all and it is a fake Government Order. In view
of the above said conclusion of the learned Single Judge and the
fact that the decision of the subsequent Division Bench was
rendered in ignorance of the earlier Division Bench, the dictum
of the earlier Division Bench, which is more elaborate, is entitled
to more credence than the decision of the subsequent Division
Bench, the Honble Supreme Court in Sri Jagannath Temple
Managing Committee v. Siddha Math and Others, reported in
2015 (16) SCC 542, has held that a subsequent decision of the
Co-equal Bench rendered in ignorance of the earlier decision of
the Division Bench cannot be said to be a binding precedent.
12. A learned Single Judge (Honble Mr.Justice
M.Srinivasan), as he then was, of this Court in The Special
Tahsildar No.III v. Rangasamy Reddiar, reported in 1988 (1)
MLJ 317, had after referring to the judgment of the Full Bench
of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1897 Patna 191, had held
that when there are conflicting judgments of Co-equal Benches,
it is open to the subsequent Bench to follow the decision which
states the law more elaborately and accurately. Thus, looked at
from any angle, the judgment of the Division Bench in Gabriel
Jelestins case, rendered in ignorance of the earlier Division
Bench Judgment in S.Devakadashams case, cannot be treated as
a binding president. Further, the judgment of the Division Bench
in Gabriel Jelestins case has taken note of the Government
Orders in G.O.Ms.No.143, which has been held to be a fake
Government order by this Court in WP (MD) No.20326 of 2013.
13. In view of the above, we are constrained to follow the
judgment of the Division Bench in S.Devakadashams Case,
Reported in 2006 (4) MLJ 1580. in view of the categorical
pronouncement of the Division Bench in S.Devakadashams
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
Case, with which we agree, we are of the considered opinion
that the judgments impugned in these Appeals viz., the judgment
in WP No.26885 of 2013 and judgment in WP No.7627 of 2006
directing conferment of the benefits on the respondents in these
Writ Appeals deserve to be set aside and they are accordingly set
aside. The Writ Appeals stand allowed and both the Writ
Petitions will stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances,
there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
The aforesaid order passed in the writ appeal was also challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9539 /
2021 and it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 13.12.2021.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the decision
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.07.2018 in
W.A.No.1267 of 2014 rejecting the conferment of benefits, vide
G.O.Ms.No.143 dated 03.01.1987, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
Jvm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
W.P.No.13842 of 2020
08.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
