Madras High Court
M.Thavamani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 July, 2023
WP No.30226 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP No.30226 of 2018
1. M.Thavamani
2. K.Saratha
3. M.Sundaradoss ... Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2. The Director of Rural Development Department
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Cuddalore District.
4. The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay two
increments for the training period in the post held by the husband of the writ
petitioners as on 30.07.92, continuously upto their date of retirement and
consequently take into account the said increments in the pensionary
benefits and in the family pension of the petitioners and pay all monetary
benefits and other attendant benefits as paid to others through G.O.Ms.No.
85 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2012
and G.O.Ms.No. 62 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
dated 27.06.2013 in compliance of the order passed in W.P.Nos. 33981 of
2005 and 39046/2005 dated 05.07.2011.
***
For Petitioners : Mr.N. Kolandaivelu
For Respondents : Mr.R. Neethi Perumal
Government Advocate
ORDER
Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus by three
petitioners seeking two increments to be paid as on 30.07.92, continuously
upto the date of retirement for the posts in which their husbands have served
under the respondents and consequently for necessary adjustments to ennure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
that benefit to the family pension which the petitioners are receiving. The
petitioners place reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 85 Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2012 and also G.O.Ms.No. 62 again
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 27.06.2013. They
also place reliance on earlier orders of this Court and more particularly in
W.P.Nos. 33981 of 2005 and 39046/2005 both dated 05.07.2011.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, which had
been sworn by the third petitioner herein, it had been stated that the late
husbands of the three writ petitioners were initially selected as Rural Welfare
Officer Grade II through TNPSC. They had been sent for training for a
period of two years. After training, they joined in the regular post as RWO
Grade II. They were given further promotion to Grade I. They attained the
age of superannuation. Unfortunately, the three petitioners have lost all
their husbands. They now receive family pension.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
issue of taking into consideration the period of training of two years for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
provision of increment had been oscillating before the Courts, the
Government orders have also been passed in this regard.
4. Reference can be made to an order of the High Court which had
been referred earlier, namely, W.P.Nos. 33981 & 39046 of 2005. Those writ
petitions were also filed seeking a Mandamus to direct to pay increments for
the training period which was conduced prior to the regularisation of the
writ petitioners therein. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order
dated 05.07.2011 had observed as follows:-
“10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
Court is inclined to direct the respondents
herein to pay the increments and other monetary
benefits to the petitioners for the training period
in the post held by them as on 30.07.1992
continuously up to the date of retirement of the
petitioners and consequently, take into account
the said increments and other monetary benefits
in the pensionary benefits and in the monthly
pension of the petitioners. It is made clear that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
the above said process shall be completed within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
11. With the above direction, the writ
Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition in W.P.No.
33981 of 2005 is closed.”
5. Thereafter, on the basis of that particular order, G.O.Ms.No.
85 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 11.09.2012
and G.O.Ms.No. 62 again Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department dated 27.06.2013 had been passed but sanctioning and
extending the benefit of payment of two increments only to those writ
petitioners.
6. Therefore, others, who had not earlier filed Writ Petitions
started to file writ petitions before this Court. Individual orders granting the
reliefs sought were passed by learned Single Judges of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
7. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No. 99 Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department dated 16.02.2015 and other Government Orders were
passed. The petitioners in the writ petitions then started approaching the
respondents seeking extension of the benefits granted under the said
Government Orders. The first respondent had then issued proceedings on
23.10.2017. By that proceedings, it was determined that the reliefs would
be granted only to those who approach the Court seeking such relief.
8. The present Writ Petition has been field in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus stating that since the petitioners had approached the Court, they
should be extended that benefit.
9. The facts stated cannot be denied, namely the facts of the
husbands of the petitioners joining service, having undergone training and
being taken into regular service and thereafter, being promoted as Rural
Welfare Officer Grade I and then retiring on attaining the age of
Superannuation. The fact that earlier Writ Petitions were filed claiming
increments even from the date of undergoing training again cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
denied. Orders were passed by the Courts and Government Orders were also
passed. But this brought about a financial commitment on the Government
since successively one after the other, various petitioners started to claim
that particular extension to also be given to them. It was not restricted to
only those who had earlier approached the Court but individual Writ
Petitions then came to be filed.
10. The present Writ Petition has been filed after considerable
delay. In the affidavit, the date on which the late husbands of the petitioners
had retired on superannuation has not been given.
11. In the counter affidavit filed, it had been very specifically stated
that the respondents have not received any copy of the representation said to
have been given by the petitioners on 22.12.2017 or on 20.11.2018. The
assertion that the petitioners had given those representations were denied
and during the course of arguments, on the side of the respondents, it was
also very strongly asserted that those representations do not form part of the
records available and it is to be inferred that the said representations have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
not been given. It is therefore, contended on behalf of the respondents that
the petitioners have slept over for a considerable number of years and had
thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2018 seeking extension
of the right from 30.07.1992 onwards.
12. It had also been contended on behalf of the respondents that
orders have been passed to comply with the directions of this Court in a few
of the writ petitions, but those orders were applicable only to those writ
petitioners and cannot be an order in rem. It is further contended on behalf
of the respondents that those orders applied only to those writ petitioners.
The bona fide of the petitioners in not approaching the Court at an earlier
date had also been seriously questioned by the learned counsel on behalf of
the respondents.
13. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and
perused the materials available on records.
14. As stated, the late husbands of the petitioners herein had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
originally appointed after being selected by TNPSC as Rural Welfare Officer
Grade II. Prior to even the initial posting, there was a necessity to send
them for training for a period of two years. Then they continuously served
as RWO Grade II and were promoted subsequently as Grade I Officers.
Then they retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
15. In the affidavit, there is no explanation given as to why, after
retirement on superannuation, the late husbands of the petitioners did not
claim the privilege which the petitioners are now seeking. It has also not
been stated as to why the petitioners did not seek such privilege of extending
the increments for a period of two years for the period of training as early as
possible.
16. The earliest writ petition seeking such privilege was filed in the
year 2005 but disposed of in the year 2011 and thereafter, Government
Orders were passed naturally complying with the directions of the High
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
17. The Government had to comply with the orders of the High
Court but this brought about a situation that further representations were
made and further writ petitions were filed. Thereafter, a Government Order
was passed restricting the privilege only to those who filed writ Petitions but
again writ petitions were filed and directions were given. This is one such
writ petition. This had been filed in the year 2018.
18. The fact that increment as a policy should be granted form the
period of training has been established by the series of orders of learned
Single Judges of this Court. But what is to be taken into consideration is the
applicability or the date from which it is applicable. If it is to be applicable
right from the date on which the late husbands of the petitioners joined duty
and continuously, then the petitioners would gain a bounty as on this date.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there would not
be consequent upgrade in the scale of pay, but the terminal benefits will
have to be recalculated with respect to the post which the late husbands held
as on 30.07.1992.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
19. In this connection, the learned counsel place reliance on the
Judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 17459 of 2013 dated
27.06.2013. That Writ Petition alone had been filed by 149 petitioners. The
learned Single Judge after considering the factors as stated above had finally
ordered as follows:-
“3. In the circumstances, the
petitioners are permitted to make
individual representations to the first
respondent setting out the grievance as to
the non-payment of the benefits as provided
in G.O.Ms.No. 85, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department dated
11.09.2012, as they are also similarly
situated persons like the persons covered
under the said Government order. The first
respondent is directed to pass orders on the
representation within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
20. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that consequent to such order being passed, Government Order had already
been passed explaining the delay.
21. In view of the established principles followed by the learned
Single Judges, it would be extremely inappropriate on the part of this Court
to give any divergent view. Rule of law also applies in maintaining
consistency in orders. Therefore, I would also permit the petitioners to give
a fresh representation as indicated above by the learned Single Judge and the
respondents, may issue notice to the petitioners herein and examine the
reasons for the delay in approaching the Court. I would place a small caveat
that if the reasons for delay are not properly explained, there could be a
small window open for the respondents not to extend the benefit for those
number of period of years till the date of filing of the Writ Petition and
thereafter, extend the benefit once again. There cannot be continuity in
entirety but for the period of delay, there must be a small break given and
thereafter continuously given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
22. It is made clear that the family pension should be continued to
be granted but there should be some adjustments for delay which would
depend on the explanation given by the petitioners in their representations.
23. An obligation is placed on the respondents to comply with the
directions of this Court. Such obligation would commence from the date of
receipt of fresh representations given by the petitioners herein and from that
date onwards, within a period of 16 weeks, the respondents may do the
necessary needful and comply with the directions.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
24. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
21.07.2023
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.30226 of 2018
To
1. The Secretary
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2. The Director of Rural Development Department
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3. The District Collector
Cuddalore District.
4. The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District.
WP No.30226 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
