Madras High Court
A.P.Aravazhi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 November, 2023
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.25673 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA
CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.25673 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
1. A.P.Aravazhi
2. N.Sundara Doss
3. V.S.Chinnakulandai
4. R.Subas Chandra Bose
5. S.Thirupathiraj
6. U.Krishnan
7. M.Vedanayagam
8. J.Francis
9. E.V.Adikesavan
10. P.Krishnaswamy ...Petitioners
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to the Government
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25673 of 2011
School Educational Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Finance Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director of School Education
College Road
Chennai-600 006. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first
and third respondent in relation to letter No.25103/A1/09-2 dated
21.01.2010 and proceedings Na.Ka.No.82853/C1/C2/09 dated
25.02.2010 respectively and quash the same and issue a consequential
direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1581,
Education Department, dated 06.11.1989 to the petitioners as well, in the
way and manner as implemented as in the case "A" wing teachers and to
grant arrears of pay and pension.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saseetharan
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus challenging a letter dated 21.01.2010 bearing reference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.25103/A1/09-2 and proceedings dated 25.02.2010 bearing reference
Na.Ka.No.82853/C1/C2/09 respectively passed by the first and third
respondents and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to
extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1581, Education Department, dated
06.11.1989 to the petitioners as well, in the way and manner as
implemented as in the case "A" wing teachers and to grant arrears of pay
and pension.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would fairly concede that
the identical prayers in similar writ petitions filed by similarly placed
employees were dismissed. As against the same, W.A.No.1214 of 2014
etc., were filed by similarly placed employees and the writ appeals were
also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, similarly placed employees i.e.,
P.R.Rengasamy and others have filed SLP(C) D.No.12761 of 2020 before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the matter is pending. Therefore,
he would submit that this case should await the result of SLP.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondents would submit that when this Court has already decided
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the matter, there is no necessity to keep the matter pending, especially,
when there is no interim order in the SLP.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the records available in the case file.
5. Admittedly, the same relief has been rejected by this Court and
confirmed by Hon'ble Division Bench. As on date, there is no interim
order prohibiting the hearing of the present writ petition. This writ
petition is of the year 2011 and need not be kept unnecessarily pending.
Therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the order
passed in the earlier writ petition but however, if any order is passed in
favour of said P.R.Rengasamy and others, the respondents can always
review the case of the petitioners and grant necessary relief upon the
representation of the petitioners.
6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the
following terms :
(i) The prayer in the writ petition shall stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed in terms of the judgment of this Court dated
19.08.2019 in W.A.No.1214 of 2014 etc.,;
(ii) In the event, SLP(C) D.No.12761 of 2020 is
allowed and any relief is granted in favour of the
petitioners therein i.e., P.R.Rengasamy and others, it is
open for the writ petitioners to make a representation
before the respondents and upon the receipt of the said
representation along with the order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it would be incumbent upon the respondents to
reconsider the case of the petitioners in terms of the order
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
27.11.2023
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
mk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J.,
mk
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Secretary to the Government
School Educational Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Finance Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director of School Education
College Road
Chennai-600 006.
27.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
