S.Vijai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2024 Latest Caselaw 14875 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14875 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2024

Madras High Court

S.Vijai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2024

W.P.(MD)No.17654 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 01.08.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

W.P.(MD)No.17654 of 2024

S.Vijai ... Petitioner

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education,
(Secondary Education),
College Road, Chennai -600 009.

3. The District Educational OffiIcer,
Collectorate Building,
Karur. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the

salary to the petitioner for the period from 12.12.1997 to 31.05.2003

within the time limit stipulated by this Court.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17654 of 2024

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan
Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.T.AMjadkhan, learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

2.This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus,

to direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period

from 12.12.1997 to 31.05.2003 within the specific time.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on

09.12.1997 and joined duty at C.S.I.Boys Higher Secondary School,

Karur, on 12.12.1997. Meanwhile, he changed his name from

S.Vijayakumar to S.Vijai by way of Gazette Notification dated

05.12.2001 bearing No.46. Thereafter, he had retired from service on

31.01.2019. Though the petitioner was joined duty on 12.12.1997, he had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

not been paid the salary till 31.05.2003. His post was approved by the 3rd

respondent on 12.08.2003. Based on the direction of the 2nd respondent,

the petitioner had undergone Child Psychology Training and completed

the training on 31.05.2003 for which a certificate was issued by the

District Institute of Education and Training, Mayanur. Therefore, the

petitioner has given a representation on 15.07.2024 to the respondents to

pay the salary from 12.12.1997 to 31.05.2003. Since the said

representation was not considered, the petitioner is before this Court with

this writ petition.

4. In this regard, an earlier order has been passed by this Court

in W.P.(MD) No.15670 of 2016, wherein it is held as under:

“12. The issue to be considered in the present writ petition is whether the past service rendered by the petitioner before his completion of Child Psychology Training shall be considered or not. In fact, this issue was already considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary and others Vs. Pallivasal Primary School, represented by its Correspondent reported in 2004-2- L.W.591. In the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the past services rendered by the Teachers shall be counted for pension. By following the judgment of the Division Bench, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 21803 and 21804 of 2019 and 8154 of 2016 by order dated 25.11.2019 directing the respondents to count the services of the petitioners therein rendered before their approval for pensionary benefits. In the writ appeal filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No. 8154 of 2016, by order dated 28.07.2021, in W.A. (MD) No.1464 of 2021, a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeal confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

13. In fact, in the present writ petition also, the petitioner was appointed prior to 01.04.2003 and his appointment was approved. The ratio in the judgment referred above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

14. For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: i)The impugned order in A.thi.Mu.No.05924/A1/14 dated 05.06.2015 is set aside; ii)The respondents are directed to count the service of the petitioner from 17.02.1998 to 01.06.2003, which is rendered prior to his approval for payment of pensionary benefits.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. As submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition without

challenging the order of regularization which was given effect from

12.08.2023. Therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

However, the representation of the petitioner also has not been considered

so far.

6.Hence, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter,

directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner

dated 15.07.2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

order.