WA/237/2024 of STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs P.MURALIDHARAN on 8 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) State preferred the present intra court appeal challenging the writ order dated 10.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.2221 of 2020.

2. The respondents filed a writ of Mandamus seeking direction against the appellants to regularise their services from the initial date of appointment till 01.06.2006 and all consequential monetary and service benefits. Even the prayer sought for in the writ petition does not indicate the basis on which they are seeking regularisation of services.

3. The respondents were initially appointed as teachers on consolidated pay basis. Considering the case of the respondents, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99, School Education Department dated 27.06.2006 granting regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.2006. The Government Order clearly stipulates that teachers who are working as Junior Teachers in Government and Government Aided Schools with consolidated pay scale on contract basis from 2003-04 will be granted regular time scale of pay from 01.06.2006 and in future regular time scale of pay will be fixed while filling the vacancies in Government and Government Aided Schools.

4. Pertinently, the said Government Order remains unchallenged. As per the Government Order, the benefit of regular time scale had been granted to the respondents with effect of 01.06.2006. Not satisfied with the implementation of the Government policy decision to grant regular time scale of pay, the respondents have filed a writ petition seeking retrospective seniority and regularisation from their initial date of engagement on consolidated pay.

5. The seniority or other benefits cannot be granted over and above the policy decision made by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 27.06.2006 and more so when the said policy decision remains intact and not challenged by the respondents. The Writ Court, in the impugned order relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.3904 of 2019 dated 13.01.2020 and granted the relief.

6. However, the learned Special Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that, subsequently the State filed a batch of Review Applications in Rev.Appln.Nos.60 of 2020 etc., wherein said order has been reviewed by the Division Bench of this Court. The relevant portions of the order dated 17.08.2021 is extracted hereunder: “

29. When already the Government Orders issued by the Government are clear about fixing of the seniority, the same cannot be now altered by the judicial intervention. It is also to be seen that when the First Division Bench passed the order, based on the concession given by the Government, the right of the other parties (review petitioners/appellants in W.A.No.723 of 2020 and other similarly placed teachers), who were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings, would be affected and the same was not brought to the notice of this Court.

30. If the writ petitioners/the private respondents herein are extended such benefits, it will take away the rights already accrued to the review petitioners and other similarly placed teachers. It is, in this background, the review petition was entertained by the First Division Bench and such judicial intervention cannot be taken advantage of by the writ petitioners, in the absence of the persons, who may be affected by such an order.

31. When the absorption of the writ petitioners were during 2006, as per G.O.Ms.No.120, the writ petitioners had, in fact, knocked at the doors of this Court only in the year 2014, after inordinate delay and there is no explanation / reason for the delay and laches on their part. Even assuming that the writ petitioners moved the Court only after the non~inclusion of their name in the promotion panel, the said approach cannot be appreciated by this Court, for the simple reasons that they had accepted the terms and conditions of all those Government Orders and after such inordinate delay, they cannot seek any relief which is in contravention to the terms of those Government Orders. Undoubtedly, the delay on the part of the writ petitioners would disentitle them from the relief sought by them.

32. The said principle was re~emphasised by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, in the following terms: “7. It is also well~settled principle of law that ‘delay defeats equity’. The Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.”

33. The Hon-ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K, (2009) 15 SCC 321, observed as follows : “19. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For sufficient or cogent reasons a court may in a given case refuse to exercise its jurisdiction; delay and laches being one of them. While considering the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, the court must also consider the effect thereof.“

34. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the pendency of the writ petitions, writ appeals and the review application, the promotion panel, which was drawn on 16.11.2019 is kept pending without any progress.

35. The First Bench, also had passed a reasoned order on 01.09.2020 to admit the review application. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Review petition No.60 of 2020 and W.A.No.723 of 2020 filed by the third parties, whose rights are affected by the said order, are allowed and consequently, the order dated 13.01.2020 passed in W.A.No.3904 of 2019 is recalled. As a natural corollary, the order passed by the writ Court dated 30.07.2019 in W.P.No.4991 of 2015 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.

36. In view of the orders passed by us in the instant review petition, the writ appeals filed by the Government in W.A.Nos.245, 246 and 462 of 2020 are also allowed and the respective orders passed by the learned Single Judges, which were impugned therein, are also set aside and those writ petitions are dismissed.

37. It is also made clear that any order passed by this Court placing reliance on the judgment dated 13.01.2020 in

W.A.No.3904 of 2019 and the order dated 30.07.2019 in W.P.No.4991 of 2015 cannot be given effect to, in view of the order passed in the review petition recalling the order dated 13.01.2020.

38. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

7. Pertinently, the Review Applications filed by the State have been allowed and therefore, the respondents are eligible to get the service benefits only with effect from 01.06.2006 as per G.O.Ms.No.99, School Education Department dated 27.06.2006.

8. In view of the above factual and legal position, the impugned writ order dated 10.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.2221 of 2020 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 08-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST WA No. 237 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 1420 OF 2024 08-09-2026