Madras High Court
Natchiappan vs The Secretary To Government on 20 February, 2025
2025:MHC:551
W.P.(MD) No.3320 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD) No.3320 of 2019
Natchiappan ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2 The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-18.
3 The Directorate of Elementary Education,
Chennai-6.
4 The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
5 The Block Educational Officer,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.3320 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the order passed by the 5th respondent in his proceedings
in Na.Ka.No.815/A2/2018, dated 11.10.2018, and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.
210, School Education Department, dated 14.8.2009, by awarding
selection/special grade in the post of Middle School Head Master, by taking
into account of the petitioner's entire service rendered prior to 01.06.1988.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For Respondents 1,3,4 & 5 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Addl. Govt. Pleader.
For Respondent 2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed, assailing the order passed by the fifth
respondent in his proceedings, dated 11.10.2018, and seeking for a direction
to the respondents to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.210, School
Education Department, dated 14.8.2009, by awarding selection/special grade
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the post of Middle School Headmaster, by taking into account of the
petitioner's entire service rendered prior to 01.06.1988.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Higher
Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School on 25.11.1975, and
upgraded as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.1978, and also awarded
selection grade and special grade on 01.01.1988 and 21.03.1998 respectively.
He was promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster on 23.12.1998.
He was further promoted to the post of Graduate Headmaster in Middle School
on 01.06.2000. He retired from service on 31.05.2004 as Graduate
Headmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School. Since the teachers, similarly
placed to that of the petitioner, had obtained selection/special grade as on
01.06.1988 in the post of Middle School Headmaster based on G.O.Ms.No.210,
School Education Department, dated 14.08.2009, and G.O.Ms.No.146, School
Education Department, dated 19.06.2012, and also based on the orders of
this Court, the petitioner made a representation before the Block Educational
Officer, Aranthangi, fifth respondent herein, for granting similar benefits to
him on 11.11.2015. Since the said representation was not considered, the
petitioner preferred W.P.(MD) No.6256 of 2016 before this Court for a direction
to dispose of his representation, dated 11.11.2015, within a stipulated time.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the said writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to dispose of the
said representation, vide order, dated 30.03.2016. Thereafter, the fifth
respondent passed an order on 11.10.2018, rejecting the petitioner's request
to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009. Hence, this Writ
Petition.
3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, would submit
that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered and settled by Division
Bench judgments of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1420 of 2017, dated
20.11.2017, and W.A.(MD) No.2793 of 2018, dated 02.01.2019. He would
further submit that G.O.Ms.No.210 did not mandate the petitioner to complete
20 years of service, as stated in the impugned order. He would also submit
that as per the decision of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1420 of 2017, the
teachers involved had been appointed only in the year 1980, whereas the
petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.1978 itself.
Further, he would submit that the post of Middle School Headmaster became
a promotional post with effect from 01.10.1970, on awarding higher scale of
pay as per the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission from
10.10.1970. Since the said post became a promotional post, seniority in the
cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher was relevant for making promotion to the
post of Middle School Headmaster as per Section of the Panchayat Union
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Establishment Rules, which stipulated that any promotion should be made on
the ground of seniority. The learned counsel submits that G.O.Ms.No.210 was
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, restoration of benefits was discriminatory and even the deceased
Government servant, namely, the legal heirs of the petitioner's father, were
entitled for extension of the benefits given in G.O.Ms.No.210. To strengthen
his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon a Full Bench decision of this
Court in The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, School Education
Department, Chennai, v. G.Eswaran and Others, reported in 2017 (2) MLJ 257
(FB), to show that whenever a Government Order is issued to particular
Government employees, the said benefit can also be extended to similarly
placed employees. He also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court
in W.A.No.2793 of 2018, dated 02.01.2019, in the case of The Government of
Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, School Education Department,
Chennai, v. M.S.Gomathi, to show that G.O.Ms.No.210 was extended to the
similarly placed employees. The learned counsel further relied upon another
Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.34 of 2017, dated 03.01.2019,
to show that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.210 was extended to similarly placed
employees.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing
on behalf of the respondents, would submit that the petitioner was appointed
as Higher Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School on
25.11.1975. His post was upgraded as Secondary Grade Teacher on
01.06.1978. Therefore, he was awarded selection grade on 01.01.1988 and
awarded special grade on 21.03.1998, at the post of Secondary Grade Teacher.
He would further submit that, later, the petitioner was promoted as Primary
School Headmaster on 23.12.1998 and, thereafter, as Middle School
Headmaster on 01.06.2000. He would also submit that G.O.Ms.No.210 was
passed only to implement the order passed in writ petitions in W.P.Nos.29626
and 29624 of 2005, dated 15.09.2005, which was confirmed by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.233 of 2008, vide its order, dated 21.04.2008.
According to him, G.O.Ms.No.210 was applicable only to 65 teachers, but not
to the petitioner herein, and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the said
benefit. To strengthen his contentions, the learned Additional Government
Pleader would rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.(MD)
No.478 -480 of 2015, dated 31.07.2023, to show that G.O.Ms.No.210 gave the
benefit, by counting both the services of Secondary Grade Teacher and
Primary School Headmaster, for the persons, who were holding the post of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Middle School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988. The learned Additional
Government Pleader would also submit that G.O.Ms.No.210 was passed in the
year 2009, whereas the petitioner initially filed writ petition in the year 2016
and retired from service in the year 2004, and, therefore, the claim of the
petitioner was hit by laches. He also drew the attention of this Court to
paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. He,
accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that cause of
action is a continuous one and the same is clearly observed in the judgment in
W.A.2793 of 2018, cited supra.
6. I have heard the rival submissions made on either side and also
perused the material available on record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Higher Grade
Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School on 25.11.1975. His post was
upgraded as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.1978. He was awarded
selection grade on 01.01.1988 and special grade on 21.03.1998. Thereafter, he
was promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster on 23.12.1998 and
further to the post of Graduate Headmaster in Middle School on 01.06.2000.
He retired from service on 31.05.2004.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009. would go to
show that it was passed only to implement the order passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.29626 and 29624 of 2005, dated 15.09.2005, which was also
confirmed by a Division Bench, vide an order, dated 21.04.2008, in W.A.No.
233 of 2008. The said G.O. was clear that the benefit therein was given, by
counting both the services, namely, Secondary Grade Teacher and Primary
School Headmaster, for the persons, who were holding the post of Middle
School Headmaster as on 01.06.1988 alone. In the case on hand, the
petitioner was holding the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as on 01.06.1988.
Therefore, extension of benefit under G.O.Ms.No.210, dated 14.08.2009, was
not applicable to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the fifth respondent
was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of the benefit
under the said G.O., vide the order impugned.
9. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.2602 of 2019 is closed.
20.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dixit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1 The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2 The Principal Accountant General (A&E),
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-18.
3 The Directorate of Elementary Education,
Chennai-6.
4 The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
5 The Block Educational Officer,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
dixit
20.02.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
