High Court · 2025

W.P. No.15441 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.06.2025CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.15441 of 20151. M.Madan2. C.Krishnan3. A.Jaya Arokiasamy4. A.Sagitha Begam5. K.Saroja6. G.Kesavan7. G.Rajendiran8. S.Ganapathy9. S.Aptha Begam10. D.Nagalingam11. K.Abdul Rasith12. G.Amalarpavam13. R.Chandran14. R.K.Sigamani15. K.B.Raman16. S.Rathinam17. P.Kuppusamy18. R.Nallaiyan19. K.Marimuthu20. M.Murugesan21. S.Muniraj22. I.Urkalan23. Murugesan24. R.Varadarasan25. V.Ekambaram26. T.Shanmugam27. S.Ramar28. S.P.Shanmugam29. L.Venkatesan30. N.Subramaniyan1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 201531. M.Vekatesaiah32. G.Narayana Reddy33. K.E.S.Brunda Kumar34. A.Kothanda Ramaiah35. M.Munirathnappasetty36. K.Alimelamma37. N.Sathyanarayana38. K.Sreenivasalu Naidu39. T.Gopalappa40. V.Rajareddy41. M.Kalliappan42. G.V.Pappaiah43. H.N.Balakrishnamurthy44. B.N.Nanjundappa45. G.Chellammal46. R.Balakrishnan47. K.Suriyagandhi48. V.S.Kanniappan49. M.Ragothaman50. P.Krishnamoorthy51. S.Jagadeesan52. R.Jayapalan53. M.Gopalakrishnan54. K.Sarthar Beig55. P.J.Janakiraman56. G.Eagambaram57. P.M.Chinnakannan58. P.Jagadeesan59. Manivannan60. D.Joseph61. N.L.Natesan62. P.N.Rangasamy63. P.Manimegalai64. P.Athoyee65. N.Muthusamy66. P.Kumarasamy67. A.Kannammal68. A.Rajarathinam69. A.Periyasamy70. Mohamed Jaguruddin2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 201571. J.Vilsonmanickam72. D.Thanjappan73. M.Natesan ... PetitionersVs.1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. By the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem, Salem District.5. The District Elementary Education Officer, Vellore, Vellore District. 6. The District Elementary Education Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.7. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.8. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.9. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Bargur, Krishnagiri District.10. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Salem (Rural), Salem District.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 201511. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Alangayam, Vellore District.12. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thimiri, Vellore District.13. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.14. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadayampatti, Salem District.15. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Nemili, Vellore District. ... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceeding bearing letter No.38392/eP/t/2(1)/2013, dated 31.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioners service rendered in the Higher Grade post along with Secondary Grade post for awarding Selection Grade / Special Grade / Special Grade pay and revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Muthukumaran for Mr.V.ThirupathiFor Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms.Akila Rajendran 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 2015ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to proceeding of the first respondent in letter No.38392/eP/t/2(1)/2013, dated 31.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to count the petitioners service rendered in the Higher Grade post along with Secondary Grade post for awarding Selection Grade / Special Grade / Special Grade pay and revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioners accordingly. 2. The petitioners herein who were initially appointed as Higher grade teachers during the period from 1967 to 1970, were all promoted to Secondary grade teachers subsequently, within a period of three to four years of their service and thereafter all the petitioners herein have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation during the years 2001 and 2007. It was thereafter in the year 2009, the petitioners on coming to know that certain other similarly situated persons who were initially appointed as Higher Grade Teachers / Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teachers have made a claim for counting of the service rendered by them in the post of Higher Grade Teachers as service in the post of secondary grade teacher and got relief from this Court in the year 2009, the 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 2015petitioners started making a similar claim by submitting the representation for the first time in the year 2009. The said representation was considered by the respondents and the same was rejected by passing an order dated 31.12.2013 which is impugned in these Writ Petitions. Thus, it is evident that the relief that was sought for in the present Writ Petitions relates back to the period 1970-1974, i.e., about three decades old. Though the petitioners have cause of action for making such a claim as early as during 1970s, no such claim was made by the petitioners and they also retired from service during the years 2001-2007. It is only on coming to know about the relief granted to certain similarly placed persons, the petitioners started making such claim.3. An identical matter came up for consideration before two different benches of this Court in W.P.Nos.24047 to 24050 of 2015 and W.P.No.1879 of 2017 wherein the coordinate benches have come to the conclusion that the relief sought for in the said Wit Petitions is suffering from latches and declined to entertain the same. In W.P.No.24047 to 24050 of 2015 it is observed as under:7. Beyond the facts and circumstances, the petitioners were admittedly appointed as Higher Grade Teachers during the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 20151970, 1973, 1977 and 1983 respectively and they were promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1978 respectively. They were further promoted to the post of Elementary School Headmasters and retired. They have approached this Court only after retirement and more so, after a lapse of several years. Thus, the petitioners have slept over their right and now approaching the Court belatedly. Thus, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected even on the ground of latches. On merits also, the petitioners have not established that they are entitled for the retrospective benefit of counting the period of services rendered by them in the post of Higher Grade Services. They were promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers long back during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1978 respectively and thus, the claim at this length of time deserves no merit consideration.4. Similarly, in W.P.No.1879 of 2017, it is observed as under:3. It is complained by the respondents in their counter affidavit that this claim has been made by the petitioner nearly after 30 years after the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.345, dated 15.09.1998 and after 10 years after the date of his retirement from service. Probably the petitioner has obtained ideas from some of his colleague who have benefited. But the petitioner having slept over for 40 years, cannot be now granted such privilege that too, for a period of just three months. He should be satisfied with the services he has rendered as teacher and to gain more satisfaction, it would be advisable that he goes over to some Children Home or Senior Citizen Home and educate the children who are there in the Children Home about his experiences and shares his experiences with the senior citizens. That would be more satisfying than initiating a litigation seeking additional pay for three months.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 20155. This Court does not see any reason to take a different view from the view already taken by the coordinate benches of this Court. In the light of above, this Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No costs. 18.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order: Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NovumTo:1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem, Salem District.5. The District Elementary Education Officer, Vellore, Vellore District. 6. The District Elementary Education Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.7. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.8. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 20159. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Bargur, Krishnagiri District.10. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Salem (Rural), Salem District.11. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Alangayam, Vellore District.12. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thimiri, Vellore District.13. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.14. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kadayampatti, Salem District.15. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Nemili, Vellore District.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.15441 of 2015MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.,vumW.P.No.15441 of 201518.06.202510 of 10