Madras High Court
A.Palanivelchamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.16604 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 08.08.2025
Pronounced On : 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.16604 of 2018
A.Palanivelchamy
S/o Arumuga Asari
No. 13-2-25 Thirukuraliakam
Pillaiayar Kovil Street
Poolankudiyiruppu Village
Puliayarai Post, Sengottai Taluk
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Education Department
Fort.St.George
Chennai- 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education
Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer
Tirunelveli
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER :
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other Writ or
order of similar nature calling for the records relating to the proceedings
in Na.Ka.No.5159/m5/2013 dated 25.05.2018 passed by the third
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.16604 of 2018
respondent and quash the same thereby consequently direct the third
respondent to refix the scale of pay at par with the Junior
K.Kanthimathinathan to the Petitioner along with interest and pass such
further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. A.R.Nixon, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. At the time of filing the writ petition, the Petitioner was already
82 years old and is now likely about 90 years of age. This is the second
round of litigation initiated by him. His earlier writ petition, W.P.(MD)
No. 6869 of 2013, was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
consider his representation. Pursuant to that order, the 3rd Respondent
issued the impugned order dated 25.05.2018. In the operative portion of
that order, the request was rejected for the following reason:
“10# tpfpjhr;rhu mog;gilapy; 01/01/1971 Kjy; nju;t[epiy
bgw;Ws;s Mrpupau; jpU/nf/fhe;jpkjpehjd; vd;ghUf;fpizahf
kDjhuUf;F 01/01/1971 Kjy; Cjpak; kWepu;zak; bra;a tpjpfspy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
,lkpy;iy” vd bjuptpjJ ; kDjhuupd; 20/12/2011 ehspl;l kDtpd;
kPJs;s nfhupf;ifapid epuhfupj;J ,jd; K:yk; Miz tH';fp
ePjpkd;wj; jPu;gg; hiz bray;gLj;jg;gLfpwJ/”
3. When the writ petition was listed on 27.07.2018, notice of
motion was ordered. Pursuant to the notice, the 3rd Respondent filed a
counter affidavit dated 11.01.2019. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the
Respondents highlighted why the Petitioner’s case is not comparable to
that of one Kanthimathinathan. The relevant portion of the said
paragraph is reproduced below:
“7. Regarding the averments made in para 6 to 9 of the
affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner was employed in
Kerala State on 13.08.1956 and due to reorganization of States
the present Kanyakumari District and Shencottai Taluk were
transferred areas from Kerala State to Tamil Nadu State with
effect from 01.11.1956. Thus the petitioner was also brought
under the administrative Control of the Education Department
of Tamil Nadu. Where as Thiru. K.Kanthimathinathan was
employed in a different unit by the Commissioner of Panchayat
Union of Vilathikulam Union. While Thiru.
K.Kanthimathinathan was serving under the Commissioner of
Panchayat Union of Vilathikulam 10-percent of senior
secondary grade teachers out of all secondary grade teachers
working under Panchayat Union schools including
Thiru.K.Kanthimathinathan were awarded Selection grade with
effect from 01.01.1971 as per G.O.Ms.No.1268 Education
dated 23.07.1971. Thiru.K.Kanthimathinathan was absorbed
into Government high school service from 17.06.1974 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
Government High School at Padarnthapuli. Therefore the
petitioner herein who was appointed in Kerala State and
transferred to Tamil Nadu state from 01.11.1956 could not
compare his pay with the above said
Thiru.K.Kanthimathinathan and he is not eligible to claim to
raise his pay from 01.01.1971 on par with
Thiru.K.Kanthimathinathan. But with wrong intention to gain
wrong pay on par with Thiru.K.Kanthimathinathan drew a
comparative statement and submitted it along with his petition
dated 10.01.2011 to the third respondent and requested to
raise his pay from 01.01.1971 on par with
Thiru.K.Kanthimathinathan, 18-years later after his retirement
on 30.09.1993. The illegal claim by comparing the pay of a
teacher who was employed in a different unit was duly rejected
by the third respondent herein in his proceedings O.Mu.No.
11049-A5/2010, dated 11.07.2011.”
4. There is no ground to reject the stand taken by the Respondents.
In any event, the Petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. His first writ
petition was filed only in the year 2013, long after his retirement. By
merely seeking a direction to dispose of his representation, the Petitioner
cannot revive a cause of action that had already become stale. The
Supreme Court, in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining,
reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, has held as follows:
“7. Every representation to the government for relief,
may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the
merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to
the department, the reply may be only to inform that the
matter did not concern the department or to inform the
appropriate department. Representations with incomplete
particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars.
The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh
cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.”
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
19.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS/ay
Copy to:
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Education Department
Fort.St.George
Chennai- 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education
Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer
Tirunelveli
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
