Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S.Ganesan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu
2024 Latest Caselaw 19881 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19881 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2024

Madras High Court

S.Ganesan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 October, 2024

                                                                                W.P.No.3201 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED: 22.10.2024

                                                   CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

                                              W.P.No.3201 of 2017

                S.Ganesan                            ... Petitioner
                                                      Vs.
                1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
                  Represented by its Secretary,
                  School Education Department,
                  Fort St.George,
                  Chennai – 600 009.

                2.The Director of Elementary Education,
                  College Road,
                  Chennai – 600 006.

                3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
                  Office at Collectorate,
                  Salem – 7,
                  Salem District.

                4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
                  Office at Teynampet,
                  Chennai – 600 006.                      ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records which
                culminated in issuing the proceedings in No.PO9/1/10914874/ADK dated
                28.11.2016 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page No.1 of 11
                                                                                        W.P.No.3201 of 2017

                consequently direct the fourth respondent to accept the proposal of the third
                respondent         herein   in       his   proceedings    Na.Ka.No.3056/A1/2016     dated
                23.06.2016, refix the pay of the petitioner and to disburse the monetary benefits
                thereof within a time to be stipulated by this Court.
                          For Petitioner         :         Mr.P.Ganesan
                          For R1 to R3           :    Mr.S.Prabhakaran
                                                 Government Advocate

                          For R4                 :         Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan
                                                              *****
                                                             ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to call for the entire records which culminated

in issuing the proceedings in No.PO9/1/10914874/ADK dated 28.11.2016 on

the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the

fourth respondent to accept the proposal of the third respondent herein in his

proceedings Na.Ka.No.3056/A1/2016 dated 23.06.2016, refix the pay of the

petitioner and to disburse the monetary benefits thereof within a time to be

stipulated by this Court.

2.The petitioner was appointed as Elementary School Headmaster in the

Secondary Grade on 01.07.1966 in Kollimalai Panchayat Union Elementary

School, Namakkal District. The petitioner was given selection grade and special

grade on 19.10.1986 and was promoted as Middle School Headmaster on

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

01.07.1987. On 01.09.1999, the petitioner was further promoted as Assistant

Elementary Educational Officer. On 14.08.2009, vide G.O.Ms.No.210 School

Education Department, the Government offered special grade to 65 Middle

School Headmasters, who approached the Court and obtained orders. The

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.234, School Education (G2) Department, dated

10.09.2009 conferring special grade to similarly placed Middle School

Headmaster's, who approached the Court and obtained orders. The petitioner

retired on 30.09.2009. After retirement, he submitted a representation dated

17.08.2010 to the Government seeking the benefits of G.O.Ms.Nos.210 and

234 in his favour. While so, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.270, School

Education Department dated 20.09.2010, conferred special grade to similarly

placed Middle School Headmaster. The petitioner therefore sent representation

on 15.05.2015 seeking the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1652dated 26.10.1987. As

the respondent did not consider the petitioner's representation, the petitioner

filed writ petition in W.P.No.22099 of 2015 for a writ of Mandamus, directing

the respondents therein to consider his representation dated 15.05.2015. On

01.07.2015, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, directing the

respondents therein to pass appropriate orders on the representation. On

23.05.2016, the third respondent passed an order refixing the petitioner's pay

from 01.07.1987 to 31.05.2000 and ordered to pay all consequential benefits to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the petitioner. The fourth respondent, on 28.11.2016 passed the impugned

order returning the proposal sent by the third respondent dated 23.05.2016,

aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

3. The 3rd respondent filed detail counter stating that G.O.Ms.No.1652

dated 26.10.1987 was passed for the benefit of those teachers who acted as

Middle School Headmaster on 01.10.1970, counting their services in Secondary

Grade Assistant/ Primary School Headmaster/ Middle School Headmaster for

the purpose of Selection Grade and Special Grade in Middle School

Headmaster. As the petitioner was promoted as Middle School Headmaster on

27.11.1990, he had not worked as Middle School Headmaster on the cutoff date

i.e. 01.10.1970, hence, G.O.Ms.No.1652 dated 26.10.1987 was not applicable

to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent further submitted that persons who were

found eligible were extended the benefit of Government Orders and as the

petitioner was found ineligible, the Government Orders were not extended to

him.

4. The 4th respondent filed detail counter stating inter alia that right from

the date of the petitioner's retirement he was claiming fixation of his pay

applicable to Special Grade Middle School Headmaster in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.1652, Education Department dated 26.10.1987 and the consequent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

fixation of pay on 01.06.1988 in the corresponding revised scale of pay of

Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000. The 4th respondent further submitted that only

teachers who acted as Middle School Headmaster on 01.10.1970 were allowed

to count their services rendered in Secondary Grade Assistants/PSHM/ MSHM

for the purpose of granting Special Grade and Selection Grade in MSHM, but as

the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1652,

Education Department dated 26.10.1987 read with G.O.Ms.No. 1178,

Education Department dated 22.12.1993, the 3rd respondent's proposal

extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1652 to the petitioner was rejected. As far

as applicability of G.O.Ms.No.210 School Education Department dated

14.08.2009 was concerned, the 4th respondent submitted that the said G.O was

issued only in respect of 65 Middle School Headmasters' who obtained

favourable orders from the Court and as the order was in PERSONAM, the

petitioner could not claim the benefit of the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's

representation was given claiming the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1652. But

considering the fact that petitioner obtained favourable orders in W.P.No.25985

of 2014 dated 29.07.2015, the petitioner's request for extending the benefit of

G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 14.08.2009 deserved to be considered favourably. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

learned counsel submitted that it would suffice if the 4 th respondent is directed

to extend the benefit of the said G.O. to the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that

G.O.Ms.No.210 was issued by the Government with respect to 65 persons who

approached the Court and obtained favourable orders. The learned counsel

therefore submitted that as G.O.Ms.No.210 was passed 'in personam' the same

could not be extended to the petitioner.

7. I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for

the fourth respondent and I have perused the materials placed on record.

8. It is seen from the impugned order that, it was passed on the basis that

the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1178, Education Department dated 22.12.1993 read

with G.O.Ms.No.1652, Education Department dated 26.10.1987 was applicable

only to those teachers who acted as Middle School Headmaster on 01.10.1970.

As the petitioner did not fulfill the condition stipulated in the said G.O's, the

proposal of the 3rd respondent extending the benefit of the said G.O.'s was

rejected.

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

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing produced

the order of this court in W.P.No.25985 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015 filed by the

petitioner claiming the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 14.08.2009. This court

in the aforesaid writ petition passed the following order,

“11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are

quashed and the petitioner shall be granted Selection Grade /

Special Grade pay in the post of Middle School Headmaster,

by counting the service rendered as Elementary School

Headmaster, from the date of his promotion to the post of

Middle School Headmaster, if the petitioner was not given the

same already, with all monetary benefits and the pensionary

benefits with arrears within a period of four weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the light of the

aforesaid direction.”

10. The only objection to the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.210 to the

petitioner is that the petitioner was not one of the 65 Middle School

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

Headmasters' for whose benefit, G.O.Ms.No.210 dated 14.08.2009 was passed.

In my view, as the petitioner has obtained favourable orders in W.P.No.25985

of 2014 dated 29.07.2015 the respondents in the absence of a challenge to the

said order are bound to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210 to the petitioner.

In the light of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.25985 of 2014 dated

29.07.2015, the order passed by the 4th respondent cannot be sustained and

hence the same is quashed.

11. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order is set aside and

the fourth respondent is directed to consider the proposal of the third

respondent dated 23.05.2016, in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court

in W.P.No.25985 of 2014 dated 29.07.2015, within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no

order as to costs.


                                                                                        22.10.2024

                Index : Yes/No
                Internet    : Yes/No
                Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
                ah/dsn

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



                To

                1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
                  Represented by its Secretary,
                  School Education Department,
                  Fort St.George,
                  Chennai – 600 009.

                2.The Director of Elementary Education,
                  College Road,
                  Chennai – 600 006.

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office at Collectorate, Salem – 7, Salem District.

4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Office at Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

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

N.MALA,J.

ah

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

22.10.2024

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter