Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs D.Thirunavukkarasu on 2 August, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1319 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Elementary School Education Department,
Chennai-9.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Trichy.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Lalgudi, Trichy District.
4.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai. ...Appellants
/Vs./
D.Thirunavukkarasu ...Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 02.09.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.14363 of 2011.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Appellants : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The Respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants herein.
The writ petitioner, who is a retired Middle School Headmaster, had filed
a Writ Petition challenging the order, under which his request for
payment of additional increments due to him was rejected.
2.The petitioner was originally appointed as Secondary Grade
Teacher on 14.06.1973. He was conferred with selection grade on
14.06.1983 and Special Grade on 14.06.1993. He was promoted as
Primary School Head Master on 23.12.1999 as per G.O.Ms.No.159,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 10.03.1998.
The writ petitioner has to submit his option within a period of one moth
from the date of his promotion as to whether he would like to claim his
increment on the basis of his pay scale as Secondary Grade Teacher or on
the basis of Primary School Headmaster.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.According to the writ petitioner he had exercised his option
and he had addressed a letter to the Authorities on 19.01.2000. The writ
petitioner had attained superannuation on 30.04.2001 and he was
disbursed with all the terminal benefits and thereafter, the writ petitioner
has addressed several representations to the Authorities for grant of
increment in the post of Primary School Headmaster with effect from
01.04.2000.
4.On the basis of alleged letter said to have been sent by the
writ petitioner on 19.01.2000 exercising his option as per G.O.Ms.No.
159, dated 10.03.1998, the request of the petitioner for grant of increment
from 01.04.2000 in the cadre of Headmaster was rejected by the order
impugned in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had
attained superannuation in April 2001 and he had accepted the terminal
benefits as per the pay scale prevailing then and he had belatedly
approached the Authorities for conferment of two additional increments.
The impugned order further cited that letter dated 19.01.2000 said to
have been addressed by the petitioner exercising his option, has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
received by the Authorities. This order was challenged by the writ
petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.14363 of 2011.
5.The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions
raised on either side, had arrived at a finding that the initials found in the
letter dated 19.01.2000 has not been denied by the Educational
Authorities and hence, the writ petitioner has infact addressed a letter on
19.01.2000 exercising his option. This order is under challenge in the
present writ appeal.
6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants relying upon the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court
contended that the letter dated 19.01.2000 was not received by the
Authorities and it does not bear the seal of the department and there is no
proof of delivery of the said letter. The writ petitioner had accepted the
fixation of pay scale and received pensionary benefits and has not raised
any objection. He had kept quite for more than twelve years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.He further pointed out that the writ petitioner has not
established the proof of delivery of the said letter to the Authorities
within a period of one month from the date of his promotion. The writ
Court was not right in presuming that the letter has been received by the
department.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner had contended that referring to the letter dated
19.01.2000, he has been continuously communicating with the
Authorities from 2003 onwards for conferment of two additional
increments on the basis of pay scale in the cadre of Primary School
Headmaster. Receipt of such letters have not been specifically denied by
the Authorities before passing the impugned order. For the first time, in
the impugned order, the Authorities have contended that such letter has
not been received. Hence, he prays for sustaining the order passed by the
Writ Court.
9.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The fulcrum of the case of the writ petitioner relies upon the
fact whether the letter said to have been addressed by the writ petitioner
to the Educational Authorities on 19.01.2000, has really been received by
the Authorities concerned. Admittedly, the writ petitioner got
superannuation on 30.04.2001. Perusal of the letter, dated 19.01.2000
indicates that the writ petitioner calls himself as Headmaster (retired).
Therefore, it is clear that the letter has been addressed by the Writ
Petitioner only after his retirement i.e., after 30.04.2001.
11.As per G.O.Ms.No.159, dated 10.03.1998, the writ
petitioner is expected to submit his option within a period of one month
from the date of his promotion i.e., on or before 22.01.2000, to claim the
benefit of increment with effect from 01.04.2000. Therefore, it is clear
that the letter, which forms part of the typed set of papers alleged to have
been addressed to the Educational Authorities on 19.01.2000, has not
been actually addressed on the said date, but only after his retirement i.e.,
beyond the period prescribed under G.O.Ms.159, dated 10.03.1998
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner has not
exercised his option within a period of one month from the date of his
promotion and the Writ Court was not right in presuming that such letter
exercising option was submitted by the writ petitioner within the time
frame. Hence, the order passed by Writ Court is set aside and the writ
appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
02.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.1319 of 2014
Dated:
02.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
