M.Gnanamani vs The District Educational Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 1203 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1203 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2025

Madras High Court

M.Gnanamani vs The District Educational Officer on 9 June, 2025

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                                           1                W.A.(MD)NO.72 OF 2023

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
                                                  DATED : 09.06.2025
                                                               CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
                                                                 AND
                                         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
                                                  W.A.(MD)No.72 of 2023

                     M.Gnanamani                                         ... Appellant / Petitioner

                                                                   Vs.

                     The District Educational Officer,
                     Sivakasi,
                     Virudhunagar District.                            ... Respondent / Respondent

                                  Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to
                     set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2395 of 2020 dated
                     13.12.2022 on the file of this Court.


                                  For Appellant     : Mr.S.Rajasekar

                                  For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,
                                                  Special Government Pleader.
                                                          ***

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2022

dismissing W.P.(MD)No.2395 of 2020 filed by the appellant herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )

2. The appellant herein was appointed as P.G.Assistant(Tamil)

on 23.03.1985 at Nadar Mahamai Higher Secondary School,

Elaiyirampannai, Viudhunagar District. It is an aided institution. The

appellant was awarded incentive increments in the year 1989 and

1993. The grievance of the appellant is that one K.Indira Devi who

was appointed only two weeks later (ie.) on 06.04.1985 was getting

higher pay. Questioning this anomaly and seeking re-fixation, the

appellant filed representation. The representation was rejected vide

order dated 27.08.2018 by the District Educational Officer, Sivakasi,

Virudhunagar District. Challenging the same, she filed W.P.(MD)

No.2395 of 2020. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ

petition in the following terms:-

“6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as P.G. Assistant on 23.03.1985. It is also admitted that her junior was appointed as PG Assistant on 06.04.1985. However, she passed M.Ed., before the petitioner on 16.09.1987. The petitioner passed M.Ed., only on 26.08.1989, which is after a lapse of two years of her junior passed M.Ed.., degree. Since the junior Indira Devi, who had acquired M.Ed., before the petitioner herein, was granted incentive increment and accordingly, her pay has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )

increased. Since the petitioner has acquired qualification much after her junior and further more, she has not submitted her application in the prescribed format within the time limit, the petitioner cannot claim pay anomaly. It is seen that the petitioner has retired in the year 2018 and after a lapse of two decades, the petitioner made a representation for pay anomaly, which is not sustainable and hence, no interference is warranted to the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. ”

Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated

all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. He called upon

this Court to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition

and grant relief as prayed for.

4. We are not swayed by the submissions of the learned counsel

for the appellant. Admittedly, the cause of action arose in the year

1997. The appellant retired from service in the year 2014. Even

pension was fixed and received by the appellant in the year 2014

itself. The appellant chose to keep quiet for some time and submitted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )

the representation belatedly alleging pay anomaly and seeking

re-fixation. The request was rejected by the District Educational

Officer, Sivakasi on 27.08.2018. The writ petition was filed in the year

2020. The learned single Judge non-suited the appellant primarily on

the ground of delay.

5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend

that it is a continuing cause of action, we are unable to accept the

said contention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported

in (2011) 4 SCC 374 (BSNL V. Ghanshyam Dass) had deprecated the

practice of entertaining the writ petitions filed after undue delay. In

this case, the delay is more than 23 years. Therefore, we are not

inclined to interfere. This writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) 9th June 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

PMU

To:

The District Educational Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 12:10:47 pm )

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.