Madras High Court
R.Subramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 July, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)Nos.1318 of 2013, 89 and 90 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2014
W.A(MD)No.1318 of 2013:-
R.Subramanian ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Mandapam, Ramnad District. ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 17.09.2010 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.
12709 of 2009.
For Appellant :Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chamber
For Respondents :Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
W.A(MD)No.89 of 2014:-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Aavudaiyarkoil, Pudukottai District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.R.John Muthiah
2.The Correspondent,
Thirumurugan Senthamil Primary School,
Vettanur Post, Aranthangi Taluk,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 29.08.2013 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.
13796 of 2013.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R1 :Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chamber
For R2 :No Appearance
W.A(MD)No.90 of 2014:-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.L.Savari Muthu
2.The Correspondent,
St.Fatima R.C.Primary School,
NGGO Colony, Aranthangi,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 29.08.2013 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.
13797 of 2013.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For R1 :Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chamber
For R2 :No Appearance
****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
W.A(MD)No.1318 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.12709 of 2009 aggrieved by an order passed on 17.09.2010
by learned Single Judge, whereas, W.A(MD)Nos.89 and 90 of 2014 have
been filed by the State challenging the order of learned Single Judge,
dated 29.08.2013 in W.P(MD)Nos.13796 and 13797 of 2013.
2.Since the issue arising for consideration in all three Writ
Appeals, though at the instance of different parties, is one and the same, a
common order is passed disposing all the Writ Appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The relief sought for by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions
was for sanctioning the award of Selection Grade and Special Grade pay
in the post of Primary School Headmaster by reckoning and computing
their services rendered in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher and
Primary School Headmaster prior to 1988.
4.That very issue was initially held against the Writ Petitioners
by a series of orders passed by different Benches. In appeal, a Division
Bench in the case of S.Krishnasamy and another vs State of Tamil
Nadu and others in W.A(MD)Nos.185 and 186 of 2011, dated
04.08.2011, had reversed the order of learned Single Judges following
the judgment of an earlier Division Bench, dated 07.07.2011 in W.A.No.
815 of 2010 batch. The operative portion of that judgment, as quoted by
the Division Bench on 04.08.2011, is as follows:
“21.It is also a matter of record that the Government have
considered the claim made by 55 of the retired employees and the
benefits of the earlier Government orders were extended to them. The
Government order in G.O.Ms.No.210 School Education (G1) dated
14.08.2009 clearly supports the case of the appellants. When it is
made out that the Government have considered the demand of a
section of erstwhile Headmasters of Elementary Schools and awarded
them selection grade pursuant to the order passed by the employees,
who have approached the Court at a bolated point of time. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants are aged persons and ultimately, they would be given only
the benefit of re-fixing their pension. The appellants have served the
Education Department for a long time and at this point of time, they
wanted only a similar treatment. The Government having issued
orders conferring benefits to the similarly situated employees cannot
be heard to say that such benefits would not be given to those who
have not approached the Court within a reasonable time.”
5.To be noted, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ
Petitions on the ground of laches, whereas, the Division Bench has
considered the matter on merits allowing the claims of the appellants
therein.
6.Both the learned Counsels before us, Mr.K.Ragatheesh
Kumar learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Mr.V.Om Prakash,
learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would concur on
the position that the judgments of the Division Benches, dated
07.07.2011 and 04.08.2011, are on point and would cover the present
cases as well.
7.That apart, as far as the appellant in W.A(MD)No.1318 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2013 is concerned, despite the State having succeeded in the first round
of litigation before the learned Single Judge, the relief claimed by the
Writ Petitioner has been granted and a Government Order bearing
G.O(Ms)No.179, dated 06.09.2013 has been passed in her favour. It is
not clear at this juncture of time, as to whether the first respondent in
W.A.(MD)Nos.89 and 90 of 2014 has also been equally successful and if
not, it is made clear that necessary orders be passed by respondents
within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.With these, W.A.(MD)No.1318 of 2013 is allowed and
W.A(MD)Nos.89 and 90 of 2014 are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
04.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Mandapam, Ramnad District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
Common Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)Nos.1318 of 2013, 89 and 90 of 2014
Dated:
04.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
