Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs.E.Chandra on 25 January, 2023
W.A.No.92 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.92 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.833 of 2023
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108.
3.The Collector,
Salem Collectorate,
Salem.
4.The Commissioner,
Gengavalli Panchayat Union,
Salem District. ...Appellants
Vs
Mrs.E.Chandra ... Respondent
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.92 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 03.10.2016 made in W.P.No.484 of 2016 and allow
this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government
Pleader for R1.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramesh.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN,J,]
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated
03.10.2016 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.484 of 2016.
2.When this Writ Appeal was taken up for consideration, the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants fairly submitted
that the subject matter in issue has already been decided by a Division
Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 01.04.2019 in W.A.No.64 of 2019 in
“State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.Nagarajan” wherein the very same order
impugned herein has been challenged. The relevant portion of the Judgment
is extracted hereunder for ready reference;
“10. In the light of the clear findings in the earlier decisions of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.92 of 2023
this Court referred supra and in the absence of any materials
placed before this Court to the contrary, it is not possible to
accept the self-serving claim of the Respondents that the services
of the Rural Medical Officers like the Petitioner prior to
01.10.1984 were engaged on part time basis. We must also point
out here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC
347] has reiterated that when a particular set of employees have
been given relief by the Court, all other identically situated
employees should be treated alike by extending that benefit and
not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the
aforesaid dictum, the Petitioner is entitled to the same benefit,
which has been granted in respect of similarly placed persons in
the decisions referred supra.
11. The order passed by the Writ Court is in consonance with
the earlier orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court
and we do not find any reason to differ from the same.
12. Accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.”
3.Following the above said Judgment, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.92 of 2023
(R.M.D.,J.) (J.S.N.P.,J.)
25.01.2023
ay
Index:Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
ay
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108.
W.A.No.92 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.833 of 2023
3.The Collector,
Salem Collectorate,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.92 of 2023
4.The Commissioner,
Gengavalli Panchayat Union,
Salem District.
Dated:25.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
