DR.S.A.RAJARAJAN vs the director/commissioner of collegiate education

WP No. 42322 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WP No. 42322 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012480152026}
Dr.S.A.Rajarajan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director/Commissioner of Collegiate Education
Directorate of Collegiate Education
577, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education
Chennai Region, Chennai - 600 015.
3. The Secretary
Loyola College (Autonomous)
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider
and pass orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 04.08.2026 to
forward the proposal for sanction of the petitioner’s full pension and all
other admissible retirement/terminal benefits by the 3rd respondent to
the 1st and 2nd respondents and consequently directing the 1st and 2nd
respondents to sanction and disburse to the petitioner full pension, all
other retirement/terminal benefits and re-employment salary for the
period form 01.08.2018 to 31.05.2019 within a time frame to be fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Saravana Vel
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 and R2
Ms.Mary Sowmi Rexi
for M/s. Isaac Chamber
for R3
__________
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
ORDER
Heard Mr.J.Saravana Vel, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar , learned Additional Government Pleader for
respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.Mary Sowmi Rexi, learned counsel for
respondent 3.
2. The relief sought in this writ petition is innocuous in nature. This
Court does not have any reason to invite counter from the respondents in
light of the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The petitioner herein has served as an Assistant Professor of
Tamil in the third respondent College and retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.07.2018. The Terminal benefits of the
petitioner could not be disbursed immediately after his retirement in view
of the interim order passed by this Court on 16.06.2020 in W.P.No.8321
of 2020, directing the third respondent not to disburse the Terminal
benefits of the petitioner. However, the said writ petition came to be
disposed of by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 29.04.2024,
directing the third respondent College to consider the representation of
the writ petitioner therein, namely Josephine Jayashanthi, dated
13.12.2019 and to pass orders thereon.
__________
Page No.2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
4. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the
learned Division Bench of this Court, the third respondent herein rejected
the claim made by the said Josephine Jayashanthi and accordingly,
passed order dated 24.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the said
Josephine Jayashanthi filed W.P.No.33599 of 2024, by impleading the
third respondent herein as well as the petitioner herein as party
respondents, while seeking for payment of compensation for the alleged
loss of career opportunity, for metal agony, for mental torture and for the
medical expenses under Sections 13 and 15 of the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013,
by deducting the same from the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner
herein.
5. Admittedly, there was no interim order passed in the said writ
petition, however, the said writ petition is pending for consideration
before this Court.
6. In the light of the relief sought by the said Josephine Jayashanthi
in the above said writ petition, the third respondent herein has not chosen
to submit the proposal for payment of Terminal benefits to the petitioner.
However, the proposals were submitted for payment of provisional
benefits of the petitioner and the same was processed by the respondents
1 and 2 and the petitioner is drawing provisional benefits as on date.
Since Terminal benefits of the petitioner have not been disbursed even
__________
Page No.3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
after eight years of retirement from service, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, on
instructions, submits that in view of the pendency of W.P.No.33599 of
2024 filed by the said Josephine Jayashanthi , Terminal benefits of the
petitioner cannot be disbursed, however, submits that in spite of the
attempt made by the third respondent College to submit proposal,
respondents 1 and 2 have refused to receive the said proposal on the
ground that the writ petition filed by the said Josephine Jayashanthi is
pending for consideration before this Court.
8. Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar , learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that, the
second respondent herein, through his letter bearing
R.C.No.5246/C2/2025 dated 07.01.2026, sought for certain clarifications
from the third respondent, while sanctioning the provisional pension in
favour of the petitioner. However, thereafter, the third respondent has
neither clarified the aspect as sought by the second respondent nor
submitted the proposal for release of terminal benefits to the petitioner
who retired from service as on 31.07.2018.
__________
Page No.4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
9. From the above, it is evident that the only reason for
non-submission of the proposal by the third respondent to release of
terminal benefits of the petitioner, who retired from service as Assistant
Professor in Tamil as early as on 31.07.2018, is the pendency of the writ
petition in W.P.No.33599 of 2024 filed by Josephine Jayashanthi before
this Court. Admittedly, there is no interim order passed in the said writ
petition, that would restrain the respondents herein from releasing the
terminal benefits of the petitioner. Merely because a relief is sought
against the third respondent to pay compensation by deducting the same
from the terminal benefits of the petitioner, that does not mean that the
third respondent could withhold the terminal benefits of the petitioner,
especially, in the absence of any interim order passed in the writ petition
filed by Josephine Jayashanthi.
10. In these circumstances, this Court does not see any justification
from the third respondent in not submitting the proposal for release of
terminal benefits of the petitioner on his superannuation with effect from
31.07.2018 in the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil in the third
respondent College. At the same time, this Court also does not see any
justification from the respondents 1 and 2, if at all they have refused the
proposal submitted by the third respondent to process the same on the
ground of pendency of the writ petition filed by Josephine Jayashanthi. In
the circumstances, except the pendency of the writ petition filed by the
said Josephine Jayashanthi , there is no other reason forthcoming for not
__________
Page No.5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
releasing the terminal benefits of the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the third
respondent to submit the necessary proposal for release of all the
terminal benefits of the petitioner consequent upon his retirement on
31.07.2018 as Assistant Professor in Tamil in the third respondent College
as expeditiously as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of the said proposal,
respondents 1 and 2 shall process the same in accordance with law and
release all the terminal benefits that are due and payable to the petitioner
as expeditiously as possible within a further period of six weeks from the
date of submission of the proposal by the third respondent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
( drm/aj)
__________
Page No.6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
To:
1. The Director/Commissioner of Collegiate Education
Directorate of Collegiate Education
577, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education
Chennai Region, Chennai - 600 015.
__________
Page No.7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )

WP No. 42322 of 2026
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
( drm/aj)
WP No. 42322 of 2026
13-10-2026
__________
Page No.8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 05:53:51 pm )