Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs G.Geetharamani on 25 June, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No.1882 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
W.A.No.1882 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.14364 of 2025
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram. ... Appellants
Vs.
G.Geetharamani ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set
aside the order dated 31.07.2024 made in W.P.No.2167 of 2019 and thereby
allow the above Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.Neethiperumal, Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.V.Sivalingam
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:50:48 pm )
W.A.No.1882 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
We see no merit in the appeal. Admittedly, the respondent who
was removed from service was directed to be reinstated by the Division
Bench of this Court by its order dated 12.08.2004 made in W.P.No.11641 of
2003. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as
follows:-
7. The intention under the G.O. issued for employment on
compassionate ground is to give protection to the members of
the family of the deceased employee. By no stretch of
imagination, it can be stated that the children born through the
second wife, even though the second marriage is void, are not
members of such family. Having regard to all these aspects, we
quash the order passed by the Tribunal and quash the order of
termination. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It would
be deemed that the petitioner is restored in service from
01.07.2002. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, she would be entitled to 50% of the wages for the
aforesaid period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:50:48 pm )
2. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, the respondent was
reinstated in service with effect from 12.08.2004 viz., the date of the order
of the Division Bench and was paid 50% back wages as directed by the
Division Bench.
3. This was challenged by the respondent in W.P.No.17622 of
2008 and the said Writ Petition was allowed and a direction was issued to
pay the back wages from 01.07.2002 to 12.08.2004 that was also paid. The
petitioner’s claim increment for the period from 01.07.2002 to 12.08.2004
and the same was rejected by the order impugned in the Writ Petition,
leading to the challenge.
4. It is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that
since the respondent was granted only 50% back wages, she would not be
entitled to increments during that period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:50:48 pm )
5. The learned Single Judge rightly rejected the said contention
and concluded that once reinstatement is ordered with effect from a
particular date with all other benefits, the appellants cannot deny the benefit
of increment to the respondent.
6. Even before us it is the contention of the learned Government
Advocate that the Division Bench had chosen to grant only 50% of back
wages. Therefore, she will not be entitled to any other benefits.
7. The language of the order of the Division Bench assumes
importance. The Division Bench had very clearly stated that “it would be
deemed that the petitioner is restored to service from 01.07.2002, however,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, she would be entitled to 50%
wages for the aforesaid period” This would only mean that she would get all
attendant benefits as if she had been in service from 01.07.2002 and it is
only the back wages that is curtailed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:50:48 pm )
8. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the writ
Court. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
25.06.2025
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:50:48 pm )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.SURENDER, J.
dsa
25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 04:50:48 pm )
