Madras High Court
A.S.Senthilkumar … vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 August, 2022
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
W.P. No. 39420 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 39420 of 2016
A.S.Senthilkumar … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4. The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Chellampalayam, Kaniyur (P.O.),
Tiruppur District. ...
Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to
consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2016 in
regard to award of selection grade in the promotion post of B.T. Assistant in the
light of G.O. Ms. No. 210 P& AR (Per-S) dated 11.03.1987 within a stipulated
time as fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P. No. 39420 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Thirupathi
For Respondents : Mr. V.Jeevagiridharan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard Mr. V.Thirupathi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Jeevagiridharan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner, who is working as teacher in Government Service, has filed this Writ Petition seeking award of selection grade in the promotional post of B.T. Assistant in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department dated 11.03.1987 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for which he had made a representation dated 30.03.2016 to the Third Respondent, but no action had been taken in that regard.
3. It is brought to notice that in respect of persons similarly placed to the Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government of Tamil Nady, School Education Department, Chennai -vs- S.Stanislaus (Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 dated 03.01.2019 in W.A. No. 34 of 2017 etc., batch) has upheld their claim for the grant of the said benefit under that Governmental Order. In this context, reference must also be made to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347], where it has been held as follows:-
"22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, the obligation is cast upon the concerned authorities to have on their own accord extended the benefit to all similarly placed persons, if they are eligible for the same.
4. In such circumstances, this Court without expressing any view on the correctness or entitlement of the claim made by the Petitioner, passes the following order:-
(i) the concerned authority shall immediately consider the representation dated 30.03.2016 made by the Petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 210, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department dated 11.03.1987 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 entitled for the benefits claimed;
(ii) if it is found that any details or supporting documents satisfying the eligibility criteria for the benefits claimed have not been produced, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 15 clear working days in that regard;
(iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements thereafter, an enquiry shall be conducted affording opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner to explain his position in that regard;
(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated to the Petitioner by 31.12.2022 under written acknowledgment;
(v) if the Petitioner is found entitled to the claim made, the eligible amount of arrears of differential amount of pay along with working-sheet showing its calculation, shall be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of passing of such order, apart from revised pay for future months on the due dates; and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016
(vi) the report of completion of the aforesaid exercise shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
In fine, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No costs.
11.08.2022 11/14 vjt Index: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 25.08.2022.
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
4. The Headmaster, Government High School, Chellampalayam, Kaniyur (P.O.), Tiruppur District.
Copy to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
vjt W.P. No. 39420 of 2016 11.08.2022 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9