Madras High Court

R.Venkatesan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 October, 2025

                                                                                        W.P.No.8260 of 2019



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             Reserved on   : 29.10.2025
                                             Pronounced on : 31.10.2025
                                                     CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                                       W.P.Nos.8260, 8265, 8269 & 8273 of 2019

                     R.Venkatesan                               ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8260/2019

                     G.Ramadoss                                   ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8265/2019

                     R.Raju                                       ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8269/2019

                     A.Vadivelu                                   ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8273/2019

                                                                 vs

                     1. State of Tamil Nadu
                        Rep. by its Secretary
                        Finance (Cooperative Audit) Department,
                        Fort St. George,
                        Chennai – 600 009.

                     2. The Director of Cooperative Audit
                        Integrated Finance Department
                        Office Complex, 2nd Floor,
                        No.571, Anna Salai,
                        Chennai – 600 035.                … Respondents in all petitions



                     Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the

                     Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,


                     1/29




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )
                                                                                                    W.P.No.8260 of 2019

                     to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent

                     in e/f/19276/rpjg[F/11 dated 19.01.2015 in respect of the fixation of

                     Notional emoluments to arrive terminal benefits leaving all the increments

                     and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to implement

                     G.O.Ms.No.446              Finance      (Co-operative             Audit)   Department,     dated

                     30.12.2010 and letter in No.43253/Tj/2011 dated 18.06.2012 and that of

                     the orders passed in W.P.Nos.27814 to 27817 of 2011 dated 07.04.2014 and

                     pass orders.


                                  For Petitioner
                                  in all petitions     : Mr.A.R.Nixon

                                  For Respondents
                                  in all petitions : Mr.Haja Nasirudeen
                                                     Additional Advocate General
                                                     Assisted by
                                                     Mr.M.Geetha Thamarai Selvan
                                                     Special Government Pleader




                                                      COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in all these four writ petitions is one and the

same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common

order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Advocate General assisted by Special Government Pleader for

the respondents and perused the records.

3. For reference, the facts as stated in W.P.No.8260 of 2019 are being

referred to.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he has been appointed as

Junior Co-operative Inspector on 15.05.1969 on temporary basis through

employment exchange and was transferred to a newly created Department

namely Department of Co-operative Audit; that in all 351 persons who were

earlier working in composite Co-operative Department were transferred to

the new department i.e., Audit Wing of Co-operative Department and re

designated as Junior Co-operative Auditors; that the Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission (for short TNPSC) conducted the special qualifying

examination for the 351 temporary Junior Inspector of Co-operative

Department; that out of the total number of 351 temporary Junior Co-

operative Auditors, who have taken part in the Special Qualifying

Examination 330 candidates have qualified, while 18 candidates including

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

the petitioner did not qualify and 3 candidates have been debarred from

taking part in the examination.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that 18 candidates who did not

qualify in the special qualifying examination conducted by the TNPSC,

approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application vide

O.A.No.4590 of 1995 and similar other O.A's seeking for regularisation of

their services which were otherwise considered as temporary; and that the

Tribunal by order dated 21.10.2003 directed the respondents to regularise

the services of those who did not qualify the Special Qualifying

Examination.

6. The petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid

order of the Tribunal, the Government preferred Writ Petition to this Court

which was dismissed; that on the Writ Petition filed by the Government

being dismissed, the 21 candidates who did not qualify in the Special

Qualifying Examination were allowed to continue and their services were

regularised with effect from 16.10.1989 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.445 Finance

(Co-operative) Audit Department dated 20.12.2005; that thereafter, the

respondents issued another Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.446 Finance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

(Co-operative) Audit Department dated 30.12.2010 protecting the wages

and also granting various benefits like annual wage increase, leave, etc.,

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the respondents did

not grant benefits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.446, he along with others who

were not granted benefits had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition

vide W.P.No.14800 of 2011 and batch, seeking a direction to the

respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.446 and to pay all pensionary

benefits including the increment for 3 years, Earned Leave Salary, Death-

cum-Retirement Gratuity (for short DCRG), Commutation Value Pension as

claimed by them under letters dated 26.04.2011 and 02.05.2011; that the

batch of Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common order

dated 18.08.2011 whereby the petitioners were directed to file fresh

representation to the second respondent therein and the second respondent

was directed to pass orders on merits in accordance with law, within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of fresh representation from the

petitioners.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the disposal of the

writ petition filed by them seeking payment of pensionary benefits and other

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

emoluments, the respondent passed order dated 07.10.2011 (3 other dates

for 3 other petitioners stating that they have been wrongly sanctioned

increment and decided to recover the same; that as the respondents passed

the aforementioned order without application of mind and without following

principles of natural justice, the petitioner and 3 others have filed separate

writ petitions vide W.P.No.27814 of 2011 and batch; that this Court by

order dated 07.04.2014 was pleased to set aside the order impugned therein

which had stated that the respondents have wrongly sanctioned increment

and thus, the excess payment made is to be recovered and for the said

reason, pension proposal was not being sent; and that this Court while

restraining the respondent from recovering the excess payment made,

further directed the respondents to send the pension proposal with Earned

Leave salary, to pay DCRG, Commutation Value Pension within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

9. The petitioner contended that despite this Court directing the

respondents to forward the pension proposal of the petitioner including the

various components of the salary, the respondents failed to forward the

proposal based on the last drawn scale of pay and on the other hand, the

respondents have fixed the scale of pay and the terminal benefits on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

imaginary notional pay basis without considering all the increments except

one increment received by the petitioner and forwarded the same for

fixation of pensionary benefits; that on account of wrong fixation of pay and

terminal benefits, resulted in wrong fixation of pension.

10. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that since,

G.O.Ms.No.446 gives protection in respect of age, educational qualification,

pay fixation, annual increment and Earned Leave (without any break), the

respondents by impugned order passed have caused pecuniary loss to the

petitioner by considering only one increment and excluding three

increments which have to be granted to the petitioner, by implementing the

order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27814 to 27817 of 2011 dated

07.04.2014.

11. By contending as above, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the

impugned order dated 19.01.2015 passed by the second respondent in

respect of fixation of notional emoluments to arrive at terminal benefits,

leaving all the increments as being contrary to the direction of this Court in

W.P.No.27814 of 2011 and batch, whereby the respondents were directed

to implement G.O.Ms.No.446 dated 30.12.2010.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

12. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on

behalf of the respondents submits that in all 351 temporary Junior Co-

operative Inspectors working earlier in Co-operative Department, on a new

Department namely Co-operative Audit Department being carved out with

effect from 17.06.1981 were re-designated as Junior Co-operative Auditor

and new set of adhoc rules were framed exclusively for the staff belonging

to Subordinate Services in the Co-operative Audit Department vide

G.O.Ms.No.253, Finance (CA) Department, dated 13.03.1986.

13. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that initially the

regular as well as temporary employees working including the petitioners

herein in Audit Wing of Co-operative Department were posted in the Co-

operative Audit Department; that thereafter options have been called for

from the regular employees of the composite Co-operative Department as to

whether they are willing to serve in the newly carved out and created

Department i.e., Co-operative Audit Department or would continue in

parent Department ie., Co-operative Department; that no such option was

called for from temporary Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Department

who are working in the Audit Wing of the Co-operative Societies including

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

the petitioners since, their appointment was on temporary basis and liable

for termination; that based on the option exercised by the regular employees

working in both Co-operative Department and Co-operative Audit

Department, the same was finalized by absorbing those who opted for Co-

operative Audit Department; that the petitioner and other similarly placed

temporary Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Department in all numbering

351 persons were considered as temporary Junior Co-operative Auditors

and were allowed to continue in the Cooperative Audit Department since,

they were working in the Audit Wing of the parent department before

bifurcation.

14. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that on account of

persistent demands from Service Association and temporary employees as

that of the petitioner, seeking regularisation of service, the Government

considering the request on humanitarian grounds took a policy decision to

conduct a Special Qualifying Examination of Higher Secondary Standard

for Group III service on 15.10.1989 to all the temporary Junior Inspectors of

Co-operative Department/Junior Co-operative Auditors through TNPSC;

that minimum qualifying mark was fixed as 60 out of 200 marks; that the

examination was based only on General English and General Knowledge;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

that in all 351 temporary Junior Co-operative Auditors who were working in

the newly created Co-operative Audit Department appeared in the aforesaid

examination held on 15.10.1989; and that out of 351 candidates, 330

candidates have qualified in the examination conducted by TNPSC and 21

candidates including the petitioner were not successful in the examination.

15. It is further contended, that instead of terminating services of

Temporary Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Department, the Government,

by taking a lenient view directed the candidates to appear for examination to

be conducted by the TNPSC, which itself concession given to the petitioner

and other similarly placed temporary Junior Inspectors/Junior Co-operative

Auditors; that the petitioner having failed to secure minimum mark of 60

out of 200 marks became ineligible for regularisation along with other 20

candidates.

16. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the candidates

including the petitioner who failed to clear the Special Qualifying

Examination held on 15.10.1989, apprehending that their services would be

terminated, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and

obtained order for their countenance in service. The respondents in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

compliance with the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3493 of 1990 dated

11.07.1991 allowed the petitioner and 20 other failed candidates to continue

in service.

17. On behalf of the respondents, it is further contended that 330

candidates who have qualified in the Special Exam conducted by the

TNPSC were allotted to Co-operative Audit Department as Junior Co-

operative Auditors and their services were regularised with effect from

15.10.1989 and also inter se seniority was fixed for them as per the list sent

by the TNPSC.

18. The respondents by counter further contended that in respect of

330 unsuccessful candidates who had qualified in the Special Qualifying

Exam, the Government by relaxing the adhoc Rules for commencement of

declaration of their probation in the category of Junior Co-operative

Auditors and for their further promotion as senior Co-operative Auditors

had issued various G.Os vide G.O.Ms.No.115, G.O.Ms.No.626 and

G.O.Ms.No.597 dated 17.05.1995, 28.07.1995 and 27.11.1997 respectively;

and that no such exemption was given in respect of 21 candidates who had

failed in the Special Qualifying Exam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

19. It is also the contention of the respondents that based on the

orders passed by the Tribunal in Original Application and this Court in Writ

Petition, the temporary services of 21 Junior Inspectors who have failed in

Special Qualifying Examination including the petitioner herein were

regularised retrospectively with effect from 16.10.1989 under

G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 20.12.2005; and that by virtue of the above G.O, the

failed candidates numbering to 21 are considered as directly recruited as

Junior Co-operative Auditors and thus are governed by adhoc rules which

were notified vide G.O.Ms.No.253 dated 31.03.1986.

20. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that as per the adhoc

rules which are applicable to the directly recruited Junior Co-operative

Auditors like the petitioner(s), are to be placed on probation for a total

period of 2 years on duty within a continuous period of three years and have

to fulfil the conditions prescribed in the adhoc rules within a period of

probation namely -

1.Candidate must undergo the course of instruction in Co-operation,

Auditing, Banking and Book Keeping for a period of nine months and a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

course of practical training for a period of three months at a Co-operative

Training Institute in Tamil Nadu.

2. Candidate must pass the examination in Co-operation, Auditing,

Banking and Book Keeping conducted by the Central Co-operative

Institute, Madras or the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

3.Must pass the Account Test for Subordinate Officers

4.Must pass the District Office Manual Test.

21. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner

herein did not fulfil one or more conditions of the adhoc rules mentioned

herein above, during the period of his service, either while being in the Co-

operative Department as Inspector or on being regularised as Junior Co-

operative Auditor in terms of the order of the Tribunal/Court, till he has

retired from the service.

22. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that since, the

petitioner who is a temporary Junior Audit Inspector initially, is re-

designated as Junior Co-operative Auditor pursuant to orders in Original

Application and Writ Petition, cannot claim himself as equal to the 330

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

Junior Co-operative Auditors who had succeeded in the Special qualifying

exam conducted by the TNPSC.

23. It is further contended by the respondents that since, the

petitioner's services have been regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.445 and

are granted benefits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.446, the petitioner is required to

comply with Rule 23-A of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules (for

short TNSSS Rules) which mandates that a probationer in order to be

eligible for sanction of increment on normal dates, is required to pass

prescribed test within a period of probation failing which no increments can

be granted; and that though the petitioner(s) service has been regularised in

terms of G.O.Ms.No.445 with effect from 06.10.1989, the petitioner did not

pass all the prescribed tests as mentioned in the Rules 10 and 11 of the

Rules and as such, his probation was never confirmed till he attained the age

of superannuation and retiring from services of the respondents.

24. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that in respect

of 330 candidates on being declared successful in the Special Qualifying

Examination conducted by TNPSC were treated as appointed as Junior Co-

operative Auditors on 15.10.1989, while the 21 candidates who had failed to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

clear the Special qualifying exam including the petitioner(s) whose services

have been regularised pursuant to the orders of the Court with effect from

16.10.1989 ie., the following day and thus, the petitioner(s) cannot claim

that he being entitled to all the monetary benefits as were granted to the

candidates who had succeeded in the Special qualifying exam or for being

treated on par with the said 330 candidates.

25. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the

impugned order was passed on 19th January, 2015, whereby, the respondents

have fixed the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in terms of Order passed

by this Court in W.P.No.27814 of 2011 dated 07.04.2014 and also having

made the payment in terms of aforesaid proceedings, which has been

accepted by the petitioner(s) without any demure or protest, the petitioner(s)

cannot be allowed to call in question the said proceedings after lapse of 4

years.

26. By contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the

Writ Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

27. In reply on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the second

respondent by his communication dated 13.03.2019, addressed to the first

respondent recommended for considering the case of the petitioner

favourably, thus the respondents cannot claim; that the petitioner is not

entitled for grant of any monetary benefits with regard to fixation of his pay

and increments.

28. I have taken note of the aforesaid contentions.

29. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner cannot seek parity

with the 330 candidates who had succeeded in the Special qualifying

Examination conducted by the TNPSC and appointed as Junior Co-

operative Auditors on 15.10.1989. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not

succeed in the Special qualifying Examination, for him to be treated on par

with the candidates who had put in effort in getting through the aforesaid

examination. Thus, there are two classes of Junior Co-operative Auditors

ie., one consisting of 330 candidates who have qualified in the Special

examination conducted by TNPSC, and the second is of 21 Junior Co-

operative Auditors including petitioner(s) who did not qualify the

examination, but whose services were regularised by the Government as a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

special case under G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 20.12.2005 with effect from

16.10.1989 ie., day following the regularisation of the 330 successful

candidates.

30. This would be evident from a reading of G.O.Ms.No.445, wherein

it has been mentioned that the services of 21 persons who did not pass the

special examination conducted by TNPSC, though they become eligible for

dismissal, but having approached the Administrative Tribunal claiming that

they should not be dismissed and that their services should be regularised. It

is in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, their services were

regularised from 16.10.1989 ie., the following day after regularising the

services of the 330 candidates who qualified in the Special Qualifying

Examination held. Since, the petitioner(s) who are part of the 21 candidates

and were not successful in the special examination, form a separate class by

themselves and cannot claim of their wages being protected and also being

entitled to the benefits on a par with the 330 qualified candidates.

31. Further, though it is contended by the petitioner(s) that their

wages/salary was protected in terms of G.O.Ms.No.446 dated 30.12.2010.

Firstly, it is to be noted that the aforesaid G.O came to be issued 5 years

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.445, whereby the petitioner's services were

regularised. Secondly, reading of Clause 3 (2) of the G.O dealing with

fixation of remuneration clearly states that while the services of 21 persons

including petitioner who were regularised with effect from 16.10.1989

would continue to receive the remuneration they were “getting before

regularisation”.

32. By virtue of aforesaid protection granted under G.O.Ms.No.446,

the petitioners on being regularised in the post of Junior Co-operative

Auditors with effect from 16.10.1989 is entitled to receive the remuneration

which they were getting upto 15.10.1989. However, since the services of 21

candidates including the petitioner who did not qualify the Special

qualification examination were regularised by way of GO, the exemption

granted in respect of 330 candidates who had qualified in the Special

qualifying examination from appearing and Qualifying in various tests,

would not be available and applicable to the petitioner(s) as the said G.Os

issued are specific in relation to those candidates, who had qualified in the

exam conducted by the TNPSC on 15.10.1989.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

33. Since, the petitioner(s) who form a separate class is not entitled to

claim the benefit of the specific G.Os which are applicable only in relation

to the candidates who had passed the Special Qualifying Examination, and

cannot be allowed to claim that they are not required to comply Rule

10/Rule 11 or Rule 23-A of the Subordinate Service Rules, for them to

claim parity, or for being treated on a par with selected candidates in the

exam held on 15.10.1989.

34. If the contention urged by the petitioner(s) is accepted by treating

them on par with the other class of Junior Co-operative Auditors, who were

successful in the Special Qualifying Examination and their pay being

protected, the same would result in incentivising the otherwise ineligible

candidates at the cost of the successful candidates, which cannot be allowed.

35. Further, since, the 21 unsuccessful candidates including the

petitioner(s) since form a separate class, they cannot claim themselves to be

equal to 330 candidates who have passed the Special Qualifying

Examination or to claim violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, if the 21 unsuccessful candidates including the petitioner

who are not equally placed as 330 candidates if treated as equals, the same

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

would amount to unequals being treated as equal thereby violating Article

14 of Constitution of India.

36. The Apex Court in the case of Dev Gupta v. PEC University of

Technology and others, (2023) 20 SCC 166, held as under:

“14. It is now entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence, that the doctrine of equality has varied—and layered dimensions, one of which is that under Article 14 : (Manish Kumar v. Union of India [Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 :

(2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 50] , SCC p. 96, para 152) “152. … Equals must be treated equally.

Unequals must not be treated equally. What constitutes reasonable classification must depend upon the facts of each case, the context provided by the statute, the existence of intelligible differentia which has led to the grouping of the persons or things as a class and the leaving out of those who do not share the intelligible differentia. No doubt it must bear rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.”

15. This Court in Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan [Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 465] explained how the reasonable classification is to be applied : (SCC pp. 42-43, para 6)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

“6. The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all, which may be a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. It is true that Article 14 enjoins that the people similarly situated should be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilarity would make the people disentitled to be treated equally, is rather a vexed question. A legislature, which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must of necessity, have the power of making special laws, to attain particular objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not “per se” amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. The State has always the power to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

make classification on a basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with.”

37. Insofar as reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of this

Court dated 07.04.2014 in W.P.Nos.27814 and 27817 of 2011, it is to be

noted that the operative portion of the order in the said Writ Petitions is in

two parts. First part dealing with recovery sought to be made by the

respondents from the petitioner(s). Second part of the order states that the

petitioner(s) is entitled to the benefits of which they are otherwise eligible in

terms of the Judgment. A reading of the Judgment would show that the

respondents having contended that the petitioner(s) was required to pass the

departmental test under Rule 23-A of the Service Rules in order to be

eligible for being granted increments and the petitioner herein not having

passed departmental test on account of which, the excess payment made to

him during the service period was sought to be recovered, this Court held

that the excess payment made is not on account of any misrepresentation by

the petitioner(s), and accordingly held that the recovery cannot be

undertaken.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

38. Further, this Court having held that excess payment made to the

petitioner during his service with the respondents cannot be recovered, and

noting that the respondent on the said ground have sought to deny sanction

of pension, directed the respondents to send the pension proposal by taking

into consideration the various emoluments to which the petitioner (s) are

'otherwise eligible' including the Earned Leave salary, DCRG, Commutation

value pension. Thus, the said direction cannot be construed in a manner as

if the Court having directed the respondents to consider increments which

have been wrongly paid to the petitioner, while in service for granting

pensionary benefits. The use of word “otherwise eligible” in the Judgment

makes the aforesaid position clear. (Underlining supplied by Court)

39. It is a settled position of law that the pension fixed wrongly, can

be revised, it such wrong fixation has occurred due to any clerical error or

calculation error. (See: Union of India and others Vs. Bhanwar Lal

Mundan ((2013) 12 SCC 433).

40. In the facts of the present case, since, the petitioner (s) did not

complete probation by qualifying in the Departmental tests, they are not

entitled for any increments during their service, though paid wrongly, for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

such increments to be taken into consideration for fixing pensionary

benefits resulting in loss to state exchequer which is public money.

41. Further, the petitioner having accepted the pension as fixed by the

respondents by taking into consideration, the last drawn pay with one

increment upto the date of attaining superannuation and retiring from

service of the respondents more than a decade back cannot be allowed to

agitate the respondents not fixing his pension by considering all the

emoluments which he is not eligible and in fact, paid wrongly.

42. The Apex Court in the case of (i)Chennai Metropolitan Water

Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC

108, held that -

16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

(ii). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Prabhakar vs. Joint

Director, Sericulture Department and another” (2015) 15 SCC 1, held that

38. “It is now a well-recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non- existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity “delay defeats equities”.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

(iii).The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed as under in the case of

“State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and

others” (2013) 12 SCC 179, held that-

29. …....... But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, has it been said that everything may stop but not the time, for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time.

43. Further, this Court had an occasion to consider a similar challenge

in relation to the same Department in W.A.No.1589 of 2021 wherein

Division Bench of this Court had held that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.626

dated 26.07.1995 is available only to those candidates who have passed in

Special qualifying examination and is not applicable to those who failed in

examination conducted by TNPSC and whose services are regularised based

on the Court order. Since, the petitioner(s) stand on the same footing, the

view taken by the Division Bench of this Court would apply on all force to

the fact of the petitioner's cases.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 07:48:39 pm )

44. Thus, considered from any angle, a conspectus of the above legal

position when applied to the facts of the case, it would be evident that