Madras High Court
K.Mayilvahanan vs / on 11 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.12327 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.12327 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.9493 of 2017
1.K.Mayilvahanan
2.R.T.Subramanian ... Petitioners
/Vs./
1.The Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.12327 of 2017
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to
the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.
594/A1/2014 dated 28.08.2014 passed against the 1st petitioner and
Na.Ka.No.601/A3/2014 dated 09.09.2014 passed against the 2nd
petitioner, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to
extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department
dated 14.08.2009.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Vinothkumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders
dated 28.08.2014 passed by the third respondent against the first
petitioner and the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the third respondent
against the second petitioner, rejecting the respective petitioners’ request
to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department,
dated 14.08.2009 to them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Under the impugned orders, the respective petitioners’ plea has
been rejected by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education
Department, dated 19.06.2012, wherein the State Government had
granted the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department,
dated 14.08.2009 to 260 persons, who have got similar relief from the
Court, however confined the relief to the persons, who have retired from
service during 01.06.1988 to 30.09.1994 alone.
3. The State Government, by way of G.O.Ms.No.210, School
Education Department, dated 14.08.2009 granted monetary benefits to
the middle school headmasters by fixing selection / special grade in the
cadre of middle school headmaster by counting their earlier services
rendered in the cadres of secondary grade teacher, elementary school
headmaster and middle school headmaster.
4. The respective petitioners approached the respondents by way
of their representations to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School
Education Department, dated 14.08.2009 referred to supra to them as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
well, but their representations were not considered and the petitioners
were constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in
WP.No.16628 of 2010, the said writ petition came to be disposed of by
order of this Court dated 03.08.2011 by directing the respondents to
consider the petitioners’ representations within a time frame fixed by this
Court. Based on the directions issued by this Court in WP.No.16628 of
2010, the third respondent had rejected the first petitioner’s request by
order dated 28.08.2014 and the second petitioner's request by order dated
09.09.2014 by holding that subsequent to passing of G.O.Ms.No.210,
School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009, another Government
Order in G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education Department, dated
19.06.2012 was passed, which granted the benefit only to the persons,
who had retired from service during the period from 01.06.1988 to
30.09.1994.
5. The learned counsel appearing the petitioners would submit that
since the respective petitioners have fulfilled the relevant criteria for
extending the benefit granted vide G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education
Department, dated 14.08.2009, which is also not disputed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents, they ought to have been granted the benefit under the said
Government Order. He would submit that, by total non application of
mind, by relying upon irrelevant Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.No.
146, School Education Department, dated 19.06.2012, the petitioners’
request has been rejected under the impugned orders.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew the
attention of this Court to the orders passed by this Court in identical
matters, one of which is order dated 19.12.2014 passed by this Court in
WP.No.33763 of 2014 in the case of D.Edward and another vs. the
Government of Tamilnadu, School Education Department and Others,
wherein it has been held that the date of retirement has no relevance for
the purpose of applicability of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education
Department, dated 14.08.2009.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the same contention that has been raised in the impugned orders for
rejecting the petitioners’ plea was considered in the aforesaid decision
and the learned Single Judge of this Court had held that G.O.Ms.No.146,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
School Education Department, dated 19.06.2012, was issued to another
set of 260 persons, who had approached this Court and got orders and
those persons retired on various dates and the last person retired on
30.09.1994. The learned Single Judge also held that G.O.Ms.No.146,
School Education Department, dated 19.06.2012 was passed to
implement the various orders of this Court and hence, the date of
retirement has no relevance.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew the
attention of this Court to an order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the another
learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.33764 of 2014, wherein also
it was held that G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education Department, dated
19.06.2012 has no relevance. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners also relied upon two other authorities rendered by this Court
one dated 19.07.2016 passed in WP(MD)No.12633 of 2016 and another
dated 21.06.2016 passed in WP(MD)No.10891 of 2016 extending the
benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated
14.08.2009 to the similarly placed persons as that of the petitioners
herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.5 of
the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent as well as paragraph
No.8 and relying upon the same, he would submit that there is an
inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in seeking benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009 and
therefore, in view of the delay, G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education
Department, dated 19.06.2012 comes into play and as per the said
Government Order, the relief could be granted only to the persons, who
have retired between 01.06.1988 and 30.09.1994. In support of his
contention that on account of the delay on the part of the petitioners to
seek the relief, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents also drew the attention of this Court to the Division Bench
Judgment of this Court dated 25.06.2018 passed in WA.Nos.429 to 438
of 2018 and relying upon the said decision, he would submit that the
petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit at this belated stage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department,
dated 14.08.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.190, School Education Department,
dated 12.07.2010 have not been withdrawn through the subsequent
Government Order namely, G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education
Department, dated 19.06.2012, which has been relied upon by the
respondents. G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education Department, dated
19.06.2012 was passed only for the implementation of the Court orders
in respect of the similarly placed persons, who had approached the Court.
Under G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009,
it has been made clear that to get the benefit of the said Government
Order, the petitioners should have rendered the services in the cadre of
secondary grade teacher as well as elementary school headmaster before
the crucial date of 01.06.1988.
11. In the case on hand, the first petitioner had served as
secondary grade teacher as well as the elementary school headmaster
before the crucial date of 01.06.1988. Even though the second petitioner
had served only as elementary school headmaster before the crucial date
of 01.06.1988, the salary of both elementary school headmaster and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
secondary grade teacher being the same, certainly, G.O.Ms.No.210,
School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009 has to be made
applicable to him also.
12. When G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated
14.08.2009 has not been withdrawn in G.O.Ms.No.146, School
Education Department, dated 19.06.2012, which is relied upon by the
respondents for rejection of the petitioners’ plea, the question of non-
applicability of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated
14.08.2009 to the case of the petitioners does not arise. There cannot be
discrimination between the similarly placed persons, who have already
got the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education Department, dated
14.08.2009, pursuant to various orders passed by this Court, which have
been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
13. It is also to be noted that the G.O.Ms.No.146, School
Education Department, dated 19.06.2012 relied upon by the respondents
for rejecting the petitioners’ plea was passed only in respect of 260
persons, who had approached this Court by filing writ petitions and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therefore, the said Government Order fixing the eligibility period cannot
be made applicable to the case of the petitioners. Infact, as noticed in
G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education Department, dated 19.06.2012, the
last person, out of 260 persons, had retired from service in the year 1994
and only on that basis, the cut-off date was fixed, which cannot be
certainly made applicable to the petitioners herein.
14. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court
dated 25.06.2018 passed in WA.Nos.429 to 438 of 2018 and submitted
that due to the inordinate delay in approaching this Court, the petitioners
are not entitled for any benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education
Department, dated 14.08.2009.
15. However, as seen from the facts of the present case, this Court
is of the considered opinion that there is no delay on the part of the
petitioners to approach this Court for the following reasons:
(a) G.O.Ms.No.210, was passed by the School Education
Department on 14.08.2009;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b) Both the petitioners had submitted their representations seeking
for the relief immediately after passing of the said Government Order on
14.10.2009 and 15.10.2009 respectively;
(c) Since their representations were not considered, they
approached this Court by filing a writ petition for mandamus in the year
2010;
(d) Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 03.08.2011,
the respondents have considered the petitioners’ request, which has been
rejected under the impugned orders dated 28.08.2014 and 09.09.2014
respectively;
(e) The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2017, within
three years from the date of the impugned orders;
(f) Now, the first petitioner is aged about 80 years and the second
petitioner is aged about 84 years.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
inordinate delay on the part of the respective petitioners to file this writ
petition. In the Division Bench judgment relied upon by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
therein had approached this Court after a lapse of 25 years and therefore,
the said decision has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. The
plea of delay is therefore rejected by this Court.
17. Since it is clear that G.O.Ms.No.210, School Education
Department, dated 14.08.2009 is applicable to the case of the respective
petitioners and they are entitled to the benefit provided under the said
Government Order, this Court is of the considered view that arbitrarily
and by erroneously applying G.O.Ms.No.146, School Education
Department, dated 19.06.2012, which has no relevancy, the third
respondent has passed the impugned orders dated 28.08.2014 and
09.09.2014 rejecting the respective petitioners’ request. Therefore, the
impugned orders have to be quashed and the writ petitions will have to
be allowed.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.08.2014 passed by
the third respondent against the first petitioner and the order dated
09.09.2014 passed by the third respondent against the second petitioner
are hereby quashed and this writ petition is hereby allowed. The first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent is hereby directed to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210,
School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009 to the respective
petitioners and grant necessary monetary benefits as per the said
Government Order to the respective petitioners within a period of sixteen
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
TO:
1.The Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Order made in
Dated:
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
