Madras High Court
S.Subramanian vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 21 September, 2022
Author: S.M. Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.1168, 19740, 34964, 34965,
22974, 22975, 22976 & 22977 of 2016
W.P.No.1394 of 2016:
S.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by
Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.The Headmaster,
Government Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School,
Alangottai, Mannargudi Taluk,
Tiruvarur District 614 018. ...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 1st respondent in relation to the proceedings issued in Letter (Ms)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.129 School Education [PK5(2)] 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013 in so far as
Page 1 of 22
W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
the petitioner is concerned and the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued
in Na.Ka. No.92/2015 dated 06.07.2015 and quash the same and to
restore the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.41/13
dated 07.05.2013 and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to
grant incentive increment to the petitioner for M.Phil. degree from the date
following the last date of the examination.
W.P.No.26752 of 2016:
S.Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by
Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Boys High Secondary School,
Balur (Post), Valapaddy (T.K)
Salem District – 636 104. ...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 1st respondent in relation to the proceedings issued in Letter (Ms)
No.129 School Education [PK5(2)] 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013 and quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and the consequential
Page 2 of 22
W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.41/2016 dated 28.06.2016 by the 5th
respondent and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to grant
incentive increment for M.Phil. degree from the date following the last date
of the examination.
W.P.No.26753 of 2016:
R.Mariappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by
Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Boys High Secondary School,
Valapaddy (T.K)
Salem District – 636 104. ...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the 1st respondent in relation to the proceedings issued in Letter (Ms)
No.129 School Education [PK5(2)] 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013 and quash
the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and the consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings issued in Na.Ka.No.2/16-17 dated 23.06.2016 by the 5th
Page 3 of 22
W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
respondent and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to grant
incentive increment for M.Phil. degree from the date following the last date
of the examination.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saseetharan
(in all W.Ps)
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreyechandru
Special Government Pleader
(in all W.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
The Clarificatory letter issued by the Government in Letter(Ms).No.129, School Education [(PK5(2)] 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013 and the consequential proceedings dated 06.07.2015, 28.06.2016 and 23.06.2016 are sought to be quashed in the present writ petitions. Further, direction is sought for to grant incentive increment to the petitioners for M.Phil degree from the date following the last date of M.Phil Examination. Facts of the case in W.P.No.1394 of 2016:
2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant (Science) in proceedings dated 21.12.2006 on a consolidated pay salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner was brought under the regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006.
Accordingly, he is continuing as B.T. Assistant (Science). The petitioner passed B.Sc. degree in Botany in April 1988 through the Bharadhidasan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 University and B.Ed. degree through Madras University in November 1990. Thereafter, he acquired M.Sc. degree in December 1998 at Tiruvannamalai University and M.Phil. degree in June 2008 through Annamalai University.
2.1. The petitioner states that he is entitled for second incentive increment for the M.Phil. degree acquired by him as per G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. As per the clarificatory order issued by the Government of Tamilnadu, second incentive increment for M.Phil. degree will be sanctioned from the date of issuance of G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and not from the date following the date of last examination of the degree. Initially, the benefit of second incentive increment was granted to the writ petitioner from the date following the date of last examination of that degree, which was objected by the Audit policy. Consequently, based on the impugned clarificatory letter issued by the first respondent, the fourth respondent issued the impugned orders in proceedings dated 06.07.2015, granting the second incentive increment from the date of the Government Order in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and the excess amount granted is also sought to be recovered. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Facts of the case in W.P.No.26752 of 2016:
Page 5 of 22
W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
3. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as B.T. Assistant Teacher in Mathematics by the order of the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai dated 10.07.2004 on a consolidated pay salary. His services were regularized in the post of B.T. Assistant from 01.06.2006 in regular time scale of pay. Accordingly, he is continuing as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics). The petitioner acquired B.Sc., degree in April 2000, M.Sc., in May 2002 and B.Ed in April 2003, after his appointment. He acquired M.Phil. degree in the year 2007.
3.1. The petitioner states that he is entitled for second incentive increment for the M.Phil. degree acquired by him as per G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. As per the clarificatory order issued by the Government of Tamilnadu, second incentive increment for M.Phil. degree will be sanctioned from the date of issuance of G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and not from the date following the date of last examination of the degree. Initially, the benefit of second incentive increment was granted to the writ petitioner from the date following the date of last examination of that degree, which was objected by the Audit policy. Consequently, based on the impugned clarificatory letter issued by the first respondent, the fifth respondent issued the impugned order in proceedings dated 28.06.2016, granting the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis second incentive increment from the date of the Government Order in Page 6 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and the excess amount granted is also sought to be recovered. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
Facts of the case in W.P.No.26753 of 2016:
4. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as B.T. Assistant Teacher in Zoology by the order of the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai dated 01.07.2004 on a consolidated pay salary. His services were regularized in the post of B.T. Assistant from 01.06.2006 in regular time scale of pay. Accordingly, he is continuing as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics). The petitioner acquired B.Sc., degree in March 1996, M.Sc. Degree in April 1998 and B.Ed. in April 1999. He was promoted as P.G. Assistant on 18.11.2011. He acquired M.Phil. degree in the year 2008.
4.1. The petitioner states that he is entitled for second incentive increment for the M.Phil. degree acquired by him as per G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. As per the clarificatory order issued by the Government of Tamilnadu, second incentive increment for M.Phil. degree will be sanctioned from the date of issuance of G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis from the date following the date of last examination of the degree. Initially, Page 7 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 the benefit of second incentive increment was granted to the writ petitioner from the date following the date of last examination of that degree, which was objected by the Audit policy. Consequently, based on the impugned clarificatory letter issued by the first respondent, the fifth respondent issued the impugned orders in proceedings dated 23.06.2016 granting the second incentive increment from the date of the Government Order in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and the excess amount granted is also sought to be recovered. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that the scheme of incentive increment was originally granted by the Government to the Teachers on acquiring the higher educational qualifications in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969. As per the said Government order, the advance increment may be given from 01.07.1969 or from the day following the last day of the examination of higher qualification mentioned in Column (3) of the table, whichever is last. Therefore, as per the original order passed in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969, the incentive increment is to be granted from the day following the day of last examination, since there is no mentioning of effect in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis learned counsel for the petitioners contended that G.O.(1D).No.18, School Page 8 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 Education Department dated 18.01.2013 did not say that the benefit of incentive increment is to be granted from the date of issuance of Government order and therefore, the incentive increment is to be granted from the date following the date of last examination of the M.Phil. degree acquired by the writ petitioners.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department dated 10.01.1969, the scheme of incentive increment was introduced to the Teachers. As per the Government Order, the Graduate Teachers are eligible to avail two set of incentive increment for M.A./M.Sc., and M.Ed. In the case of person entering with higher qualification, it has been stated as follows in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969:
“4. In the case of persons entering service on or after 1st July, 1968 possessing the higher qualification, their initial pay may be fixed by giving advance increment in their scale of pay.”
7. The petitioners had already availed one set of incentive increment for acquiring M.Sc., (Botany), M.Sc. (Zoology) respectively. No doubt, as per the Government Order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Department dated 18.01.2013, M.Phil. degree is also eligible for grant of Page 9 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 incentive increment. It is not in dispute that a Teacher is eligible to get two incentive increments in entire service. As per the Clarification issued by the Government vide Letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013, the Graduate Teachers are eligible to avail incentive increment from 18.01.2013 for M.Phil. degree. But, the petitioners have erroneously availed the second incentive increment from 30.06.2008, 01.10.2007, 01.07.2008 respectively. Since it is contrary to the clarificatory letter issued by the Government, the respondents issued the impugned orders, revising the incentive increment from the date of issuance of G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. The Fundamental Rule 26(a) referred by the petitioners is irrelevant, in view of the fact that the said Rule is related with sanctioning of increment to the probationer and the petitioners herein are not probationers. They did not obtain M.Phil., degree as probationers. Thus, the Fundamental Rule 26(a) is inapplicable as far as the case of the writ petitioners are concerned.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department dated 10.03.2020, cancelling the scheme of advance increment in all Departments. Therefore, as of now, the scheme of incentive increment itself has been abolished. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, made a Page 10 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 submission that the petitioners were granted incentive increment before issued the said Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department dated 10.03.2020 and therefore, the said Government order is not applicable to the case of the writ petitioners. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of S.P.Palanivelu and another Vs. The Registrar, High Court of Judicature, Madras dated 4th December 1984, wherein, the following observations are made:
“3........The Government Order specifically says that if a person passes the examination or test, he should be deemed to have passed it on the last day on which the examination or test is held irrespective of the date on which the results are announced and that any title, right of benefit or concession accruing on the passing of such examination or tests should be taken to have accrued on the last day of the examination......”
10. Another order passed by this Court in the case of M.Mugunthamadhavan Vs. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department in W.P.No.15859 of 2014 dated 28.03.2019 is relied upon by the petitioners, stating that the petitioners are entitled for second incentive increment from https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 the date of examination. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a direction was issued to the Government to issue consolidated instructions regarding the grant of two incentive increments to the eligible Teachers by following the procedures as contemplated in W.P.Nos.15519 & 15520 of 2016 dated 24.09.2018. Despite the fact that a direction was issued to the Government, till today, the Government has not issued any such consolidated instructions for the benefit of the Teachers and to maintain consistency in the matter of granting incentive increment to the Teachers.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the scheme of incentive increment is a concession extended to the Teachers working in Education Department. The scheme was introduced in order to encourage the Teachers to acquire higher educational qualifications for the benefit of students studying in the Schools. Thus, the scheme is a concession extended to the Teachers for the purpose of imparting better education to the children studying in the Schools. Thus, the concessional schemes are to be implemented scrupulously in accordance with the terms and conditions. The scheme being not a right and a concession, the authorities competent are bound to implement the same strictly by following the terms and conditions stipulated in various Government orders. In order to avoid inconsistency and abuse of number of Government orders passed, this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Court directed the Government to issue consolidated instructions, enabling Page 12 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 the authorities to maintain consistency and to follow the terms and conditions for the purpose of grant of incentive increment uniformly to all the Teachers. However, no such order has been issued, but now, the Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department dated 10.03.2020, cancelling the scheme of advance increment to all the Departments in the State of Tamil Nadu.
12. As far as the claim of the writ petitioners is concerned, the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.42 was issued on 10.01.1969, when the scheme of incentive increment was implemented. At that point of time, the qualification of M.Phil. degree was not included in the Government order as an eligible qualification for getting incentive increment. When the Government order was issued in the year 1969, the Government has stated that the advance increment may be given from 01.07.1969 or from the day following the last day of the examination of higher qualification. The term was incorporated for the purpose of granting incentive increment in respect of the qualifications, which were acquired by the Teachers, after issuing G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the said Clause issued in G.O.Ms.No.42 and stated that the incentive increment to be granted from the day following the last day of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis examination of higher qualification. However, in the present cases, the Page 13 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 impugned Government letter states that the incentive increment for M.Phil. degree is to be granted from the date of Government order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013.
13. Clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969 is to be understood that if any Teacher acquires the higher educational qualification, after 01.07.1969, then the incentive increment is to be granted from the day following the last day of examination of higher qualification. It is to be understood in this manner because before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969, no scheme was in existence and no increments can be granted for the period, in which, the scheme itself was not in existence. First time, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969 and the incentive was not granted with retrospective effect, it was granted only with prospective effect. Scheme being a concession and extended on acquiring higher qualification, it was stated in the Government order that after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.42, such increments are to be granted from the day following the last day of the examination of higher qualification. Thus, the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.42 is to be understood that after introduction of the scheme of incentive increment, if any Teacher acquired higher educational qualifications as mentioned in Column 3 of Table in the Government order, then the incentive increment is to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis granted from the day following the last day of the examination of higher Page 14 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 qualification. Such a Government order passed in the year 1969 cannot be taken into consideration after a lapse of about 35 years, when the scheme underwent many changes and many higher qualifications were included for the benefit of grant of incentive increments. Various Degrees were introduced by Various Universities and therefore, the Government then and there issued number of Government orders, extending the benefit of incentive increments. While extending the benefit of incentive increments, the Government issued G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. In the said Government order, the Government has not referred G.O.Ms.No.42. It has simply stated that the M.Phil. degree is also an eligible qualification for the purpose of sanctioning incentive increment. However, it is not stated that the said benefit is to be granted from the date following the date of last examination of that degree, so also it is not stated that the benefit is to be granted from the date of issuance of the Government order. However, in paragraph 4 of the Government order, it is stated that the Finance Department of the Government approved with effect from 11.01.2013. When the Government order did not speak anything about the retrospective sanctioning of incentive increment or monetary benefit, the authorities competent cannot presume that the monetary benefit is to be granted with retrospective effect from the date following the date of last examination of that degree. In other words, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 regarding the monetary benefits to be granted to the Teachers, there cannot be any presumption, unless the Government order speaks expressly. In the absence of any express provision for grant of retrospective monetary benefits, the authorities are bound to get clarification from the Government. In the present cases, such clarification was sought for by the Department and consequently, the Government issued the impugned clarificatory letter in Letter (Ms).No.129, School Education Department (PK5(2) 2013-1 dated 17.07.2013, stating that the incentive increment to be granted from the date of issuance of the G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. Therefore, the Government clarified that the monetary benefit of incentive increment to be granted from the date of the Government order.
14. Let us examine, whether the Government letter is extending the scope of the Government order or not.
15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Government letter is only supplementing the Government order and not supplanting the Government order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. It is supplementing because the original order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18.01.2013 did not speak anything about the retrospective implementation Page 16 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 of incentive increment from the date of passing the examination of M.Phil. degree. The effect of Government Order in normal circumstances, must be understood that the Government order has been implemented with effect from the date of issuance of the order. It is needless to state that any policy or Government order, granting concession if issued by the Government, the said policy or order takes effect prospectively from the date of issuance of the order or policy. If at all such a policy or benefits are to be granted with retrospective effect, then the Government must pass an express order in clear terms. In the absence of any such retrospective effect specifically in the Government order, the authorities cannot presume that the order is to be granted with retrospective effect based on the Government order issued in the year 1969. The said Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969, may not have any relevance in respect of the order passed in the year 2013, granting incentive increment to M.Phil. degree. Thus, the Government order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 did not specifically states that the monetary benefit is to be granted with retrospective effect. Therefore, a clarification is sought for by the authorities and the Government issued clarification on 17.07.2013, stating that the benefit is to be granted from the date of issuance of the Government order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. In the event of not reflecting such monetary benefits, the Page 17 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 Teachers would claim incentive increment 10 years prior to the issuance of Government order or with retrospective effect, which will provide benefits for 15 years or 20 years or more. Such inconsistency is not intended by the Government, while issuing G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. If at all a Teacher acquired M.Phil. degree 10 years prior to the issuance of G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013, then he will be getting monetary benefits and arrears for more than 10 years. Another Teacher will be getting monetary benefit only for one year. That is not the intention of the Government. Therefore, the Government letter is only substituting the Government order and not supplanting, because there is no retrospective benefit conferred in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and it was only a clarification, which provides correct meaning to the Government order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 and thus, the impugned Government orders cannot be said to be irregular or running counter to the Government order issued in G.O.(1D).No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013. In fact, the impugned clarificatory letter only states that the incentive increment is to be granted from the date of the Government order, which is the normal interpretation, which is to be adopted as far as the Government policies are concerned and in the present cases, there is no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 18 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 change of condition as far as grant of incentive increment for M.Phil. degree is concerned and thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the clarification letter dated 17.07.2013, which is under challenge in the present writ petitions.
17. No Government servant is entitled to have unjust gain. In the event of any erroneous grant of monetary benefits, which caused financial loss to the State, the same is to be recovered from the Government servants. Unjust gain of public money is impermissible in law. Exceptions are carved out only in cases, where, extreme hardships are caused. If recovery is issued for a pensioner or to Group-IV employees, then alone, an exception can be applied for setting aside the recovery portion of the order. In the present cases, no such circumstances arise and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 19 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
18. Consequently, all the writ petitions are devoid of merits and stand dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.09.2022
kak/jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruvarur District, Tiruvarur.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Salem District, Salem.
6.The Headmaster,
Government Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School, Alangottai, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District 614 018.
7.The Headmaster, Government Boys High Secondary School, Balur (Post), Valapaddy (T.K) Salem District – 636 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 20 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016
8.The Headmaster, Government Boys High Secondary School, Valapaddy (T.K) Salem District – 636 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 21 of 22 W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak W.P.Nos.1394, 26752 & 26753 of 2016 21.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 22 of 22