Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs _______________ on 20 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.13775 of 2024 & 1179 of 2025
W.P.(MD) No.1817 of 2024:
1.The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006
2.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006
3.The Joint Director of Kallar Reclamation
Madurai District-625 020
4.The District Educational Officer
Melur, Madurai District
5.The Block Educational Officer
Madurai East, Madurai District
6.The Headmaster
Government Kallar High School
Ayyanarkulam-625 537
Madurai District ... Appellants
-vs-
_______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
1.S.Murugesan
2.The Correspondent
Dhanamani Vidyasalai
Middle School
Goripalayam
Madurai-625 002 ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 14.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.24948 of 2019, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chambers for R1
W.P.(MD) No.193 of 2025:
S.Murugesan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006
2.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006
_______________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
3.The Joint Director of Kallar Reclamation
Madurai District-625 020
4.The District Educational Officer
Melur, Madurai District
5.The Block Educational Officer
Madurai East, Madurai District
6.The Correspondent
Dhanamani Vidyasalai
Middle School
Goripalayam
Madurai-625 002
7.The Headmaster
Government Kallar High School
Ayyanarkulam-625 537
Madurai District ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 14.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.24948 of 2019, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate for R1 to R5 & R7
_______________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
One Murugesan, a B.T.Assistant with B.Ed. qualification, was
serving in a Secondary Grade School since 29.06.1998. Though his B.Ed.
qualification was considered as over qualification for the post of Secondary
Grade Teacher, by virtue of G.O.(Ms) No.79, School Education (U1)
Department, dated 14.06.2002, upgrading the post of Secondary Grade
Teacher to the post of B.T.Assistant, his qualification was in consonance with
the recruitment rules. Pursuant to the spate of litigation and consequence to
the said Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.79, School Education (U1)
Department, dated 14.06.2002, the appointment of the said Murugesan along
with three others, namely, Alagumugam, Pandiselvarani and Indirani, was
approved by the District Elementary Education Officer, vide order dated
29.07.2008 and they were permitted to draw a consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/-
from 14.06.2002 and they were also ordered to get time scale of pay with effect
from 01.06.2006.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
2. Contending that they are entitled for time scale of pay from the
date of regularization of their service i.e., with effect from 14.06.2002, Indirani
and Pandiselvarani, two Secondary Grade Teachers, who are similarly placed
candidates like the said Murugesan, approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD)
Nos.2322 of 2009 & 2323 of 2009 respectively, seeking for fixation of regular
time scale of pay with effect from 14.06.2002 instead of 01.06.2006.
3. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated
24.11.2014, while considering the said writ petitions, found that apart from
the writ petitions before the Court, one Murugesan and another one Teacher,
by name, Alagumugam were also entitled for the relief of fixation of regular
time scale of pay with effect from 14.06.2002 and with the said observations,
allowed the said writ petitions. The appeals preferred by the State in W.A.
(MD) Nos.637 & 638 of 2015, challenging the said order dated 24.11.2014
passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petitions, were dismissed
by the Division Bench of this Court, by a common Judgment dated
02.12.2016.
4. While the facts being so, the said Murugesan filed a separate
writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.271 of 2014 seeking fixation of regular time scale
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
of pay from 14.06.2002 instead of 01.06.2006, however, he withdrew the said
writ petition subsequently in view of the observations made by the learned
Single Judge, in the order dated 24.11.2014, in W.P.(MD) Nos.2322 & 2323 of
2009 filed by the said Indirani and Pandiselvarani and accordingly, the said
writ petition was, by an order dated 23.02.2017, dismissed as withdrawn.
However, the benefits given to the said Indirani and Pandiselvarani were not
extended to the said Murugesan, which was forced him to file the present writ
petition in W.P.(MD) No.24948 of 2019.
5. The learned Single Judge, who heard the said writ petition,
thought that the said Murugesan falls on a different footing and therefore, he
is not entitled for the monetary benefits with effect from 14.06.2002, however
he is entitled for notional promotion in view of the fact that he is at the verge
of retirement and if the relief sought by the said Murugesan is granted, it will
cause financial constraints to the Government and accordingly, by an order
dated 14.06.2023, allowed the said writ petition, while refusing to grant
monetary benefits to the writ petitioner – Murugesan with effect from
14.06.2002.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14.06.2023 granting
service benefits to the said Murugesan with retrospective effect, the State has
preferred W.A.(MD) No.1817 of 2024. Whereas, the said Murugesan has also
preferred W.A.(MD) No.193 of 2025 against the order dated 14.06.2023
declining to grant monetary benefits from 14.06.2002.
7. At the first instance, it is to be noted that the appeals in W.A.
(MD) Nos.637 & 638 of 2015 preferred by the State against the order dated
24.11.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.2322 & 2323 of 2009, were dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 02.12.2016 and the
order dated dated 24.11.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.2322 & 2323 of 2009
filed by the said Indirani and Pandiselvarani, were confirmed. While so, when
the benefits extended to the said Indirani and Pandiselvarani by the learned
Single Judge are identical to the relief sought for by the similarly placed
candidate, namely, Murugesan, the same cannot be denied or deprived to the
similarly placed candidate Murugesan.
8. Further, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has
cited the financial constraints of the State as impediment to extent the
monetary benefits to the writ petitioner Murugean. We are of the view that the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
said reasoning does not augur well and also does not stand in the judicial
scrutiny. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as the portion
declining to extent the monetary benefits to the writ petitioner – Murugesan
with effect from 14.06.2002, is set aside.
9. Accordingly, W.A.(MD) No.1817 of 2024 preferred by the State
is dismissed and W.A.(MD) No.193 of 2025 preferred by the writ petitioner –
Murugesan is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge, dated
14.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.24948 of 2019, insofar as the portion
declining to extent the monetary benefits to the writ petitioner – Murugesan
with effect from 14.06.2002, is set aside. The State is hereby directed to
extent the monetary benefits from 14.06.2002 to the writ petitioner –
Murugesan,as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[G.J., J.] [R.P., J.]
20.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
To:
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Kallar Reclamation,
Madurai District-625 020.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Melur, Madurai District.
5.The Block Educational Officer,
Madurai East, Madurai District.
6.The Headmaster,
Government Kallar High School,
Ayyanarkulam-625 537,
Madurai District.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of 2025
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) Nos.1817 of 2024 & 193 of
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.13775 of 2024 &
1179 of 2025
20.03.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:18:47 pm )
