Madras High Court
S.Maria Michael vs The Secretary To Government on 9 September, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.2404 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.2404 of 2024
S.Maria Michael .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education,
Commissioner of School Education Office,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 13.7.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28928
of 2022.
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2404 of 2024
For the Appellant : Mr.Balamuralikrishnan
for Mr.D.Murthy
For the Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj
Addl. Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal
against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.7.2023
passed in W.P.No.28928 of 2022.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the appellant to quash
the rejection of the request of the appellant for sanction of special
grade pay.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter
alia, holding that the conduct of the appellant in making repeated
representations and getting orders from the authorities concerned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and approaching this court is highly deprecated and it is nothing but
an abuse of process of court. That apart, the writ petition is also hit
by laches. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, the
appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the appellant's plea
for grant of special grade pay in his promoted post of Physical
Director Grade-II in the light of the order dated 2.9.2008 passed in
W.P.No.10756 of 2008. Further, the prayer of the appellant is fully
justified as per the recommendations made in G.O.Ms.No.210 and
281, dated 11.3.1987 and 2.4.1987 respectively as well as the
government letter dated 13.6.1995. In fact, the government, after
careful consideration of the issue, has directed the service in the
special grade of lower post, shall be counted for the selection grade
in the promoted post provided that the special grade scale of pay
and the lower post ordinary scale of pay are identical. On satisfying
the said condition, concession was to be granted at the first level of
promotion. However, the said factum was not considered by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on
19.10.1987 the appellant attained selection grade on completion of
10 years of service as PET and had he continued in the original
post, he would have been given special grade on 19.10.1987 and
consequential increment in pay as per V pay commission in the pay
scale at Rs.1640-2900 instead Rs.1400-2600 in the lower post of
PET. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen the discrepancy
in the pay scale of PET and P.D.II prevailing as on 1.6.1988. The
learned Single Judge, instead of appreciating the case of the
appellant on merit, has dismissed the writ petition purely on
technicalities. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is
liable to be set aside.
6. We have heard Mr.J.C.Duairaj, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. We have also
perused the materials available on record.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. It appears that earlier, the appellant has filed the writ
petition, being W.P.No.10756 of 2008, for quashing the order dated
14.3.2008 passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Saidapet, and to
direct the said authority to advance special grade from 19.10.1987
instead of 4.2.2001 and to pay the consequential revised pay scale
in the light of G.O.Ms.No.281, dated 2.4.1987. By the order dated
2.9.2008, the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge thereby directing the respondent to reconsider the claim of
the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued in W.P.No.10756
of 2008, the Director of School Education passed an order dated
19.10.2015 rejecting the request of the appellant. On 5.9.2018,
the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education
Department addressed a letter to the Director of School Education
to inform the appellant that he cannot be granted special grade in
the post of Director of Physical Education Trade-II retrospectively
from 19.10.1987 due to non-fulfillment of the conditions prescribed
for granting special grade.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Thereafter, the appellant had filed W.P.No.4011 of 2020 for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to
consider the representation dated 16.12.2019 and approve the
appellant's eligibility of advancement to selection grade in the next
higher post by taking into account the completion of 20 years in the
lower post as on 19.10.1987 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.210 dated
11.3.1987 and the letter dated 13.6.1995. The said writ petition
was considered by the learned Single Judge and, by an order dated
19.2.2020, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
holding that there is no ground to entertain the same. On
1.4.2022, the Joint Director (Staff Block) passed an order rejecting
the request of the appellant to provide increase in pay accruing on
1.10.2001 along with pension.
10. Assailing all the aforesaid three orders, viz., dated
19.10.2015, 5.9.2018 and 1.4.2022, the appellant has filed
W.P.No.28928 of 2022 and the learned Single Judge, vide impugned
order after extracting the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed W.P.No.28928 of 2022. The appellant had challenged
the order dated 19.10.2015 and the letter communication dated
5.9.2018 in the year 2022. Finding that the appellant cannot seek
to revive his right, the learned Single Judge has not entertained
W.P.No.28928 of 2022.
11. Admittedly, as against the order passed in W.P.No.4011 of
2020, dated 19.2.2020, the appellant has not preferred any appeal
and he allowed the said order to attain finality. Therefore, as
rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant cannot
seek to revive his right by filing writ petition after writ petition.
Seeking the same relief, the appellant cannot make repeated
representations, despite the same being rejected by the authorities
on the earlier occasion. That apart, as rightly held by the learned
Single Judge, W.P.No.28928 of 2022 is hit by laches and the
learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. No
valid grounds have been made out by the appellant to interfere with
the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
writ appeal fails.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B., J.)
09.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
NC : Yes/No
bbr
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The Joint Director of School Education,
Commissioner of School Education Office,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.B.BALAJI, J.
bbr
09.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
