STATE OF TAMILNADU vs P.MURALIDHARAN
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 237 of 2024 AND
CMP NO. 1420 OF 2024
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Fort St.
George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director Of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600
006.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. P.Muralidharan
2. P.Sivakumar
3. P.Suresh
4. S.Krishnamoorthy
5. T.Kalaichelvi
6. S.Prabhu
7. R.Ramesh Kumar,
8. C.Mathialagan
9. G.Sulochana
..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 10.2.2020 made in WP.No. 2221 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.A.R.Suresh,
Special Government Pleader
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
For Respondents : No Appearance For RR 1 To 9
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.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
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
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
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
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
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
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
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
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )
2026:MHC:3700
WA No. 237 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
KST
WA No. 237 of 2024
AND
CMP NO. 1420 OF 2024
08-09-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )