W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 D.Jayaseelan ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025. ... Respondents / Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.9449 of 2015 dated 09.03.2022. For Appellant : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard both sides. 2.Thiru.D.Jayaseelan was appointed as Workshop Instructor in a Government Polytechnic College in the year 1973. He was promoted as Instructor (Mechanical) in the year 1976. Thereafter, he was upgraded to the post of Lecturer, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department on 28.09.1979, 28.09.1989 and 28.09.1999 respectively as per G.O(Ms)No.337 Higher Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009. Subsequently, he served as Principal in-charge from 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2008 at Alagappa Polytechnic College, Karaikudi and retired from service on 31.05.2008. 3.The teachers working in aided and Government Polytechnic Colleges in Tamil Nadu had been agitating for improvement of their service conditions and conferment of certain monetary benefits. Acceding to their request, the Government issued G.O(Ms)No.337 Higher Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009. Paragraph 5 of the said GO reads as follows: 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 “5. bjhHpy; El;gf; fy;tp Mizahpd; fUj;JUtpid muR ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;jJ. muR kw;Wk; muR cjtp bgWk; ghypblf;dpf; fy;Yhhpfspy; gzpg[hpa[k; tphpt[iuahsh;fSf;F (1) gj;J tUlq;fs; gzpKoj;j tphpt[iuahsh;fSf;F> nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l KJepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fshf gzpnkk;ghL kw;Wk; ,jpypUe;J gj;J tUlq;fs; gzp Koj;jth;fSf;F nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l Jiwj;jiytuhf gzpnkk;ghL tHq;fyhk; vdt[k;> (2) muR Miz (epiy)vz;.627> fy;tp> ehs; 07.05.1990 - ,y; nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l tphpt[iuahsh; gjtpapy; gzpg[hpe;j fhyj;jpid Kiwahd gzpf;fhykhff; fUjp> KJepiy tphpt[iuahsuhf gzpnkk;ghL tHq;ff; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf; bfhz;Ls;sJ nghd;W jw;nghJ KJepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fshfg; gzpg[hpgth;fs; mth;fs; nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l KJepiy tphpt[iuahsh;fshfg; gzpg[hpe;j fhyj;jpida[k; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf; bfhz;L mth;fSf;F nkk;gLj;jg;gl;l Jiwj;jiytuhf gzpnkk;ghL tHq;fyhk; vdt[k;> nkYk; (3) ,e;j gzpnkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpid murhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; eilKiwg;gLj;jyhk; vdt[k; Kot[ bra;J muR mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ.” This was followed by yet another GO, namely, G.O(Ms)No.4 Higher Education Department dated 12.01.2010. Paragraph 3 of the said GO reads as follows: “3. jkpH;ehL muR ghypblf;dpf; fy;Yhhp Mrphpah;fs; rq;fk; kw;Wk; muR cjtp bgWk; ghypblf;dpf; fy;Yhhp Mrphpah;fs; rq;fq;fspd; Tl;likg;g[ tpLj;j ntz;Lnfhspid ed;F ghprPypj;J nkny Kjypy; gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy; tHq;fg;gl;Ls;s gzpnkk;ghl;L Mizia Mrphpah;fs; gj;J Mz;Lfs; gzp Koj;j ehspy; ,Ue;J gzpnkk;ghl;ila[k;> me;ehspy; ,Ue;J fUj;jpayhf (Notional) eph;zapj;Jk;> 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 gzg;gaid (monetary benefit) mt;turhiz btspaplg;gl;l ehspy; ,Ue;Jk; tHq;fyhk; vdf; fUjp mt;thnw muR MizapLfpwJ.” 4.The question arose as to whether these GOs providing for periodical upgradation can be made applicable to the retired teachers also. In this regard, a clarificatory letter was issued vide Letter No.234 dated 07.12.2012. Paragraph 4 of the said letter reads as follows: “4.murhiz (epiy) vz;.1081> fy;tp> ehs; 19.8.89-y; tHq;fg;gl;l gzpnkk;ghl;od; nghJ> mjhtJ 19.8.89 md;Wk; mjw;F gpd;dUk; gzpapypUe;jth;fSf;F murhiz (epiy) vz;. 337> cah;fy;tpj;Jiw> ehs; 27.8.09 kw;Wk; murhiz (epiy) vz;.4> cah;fy;tpj;Jiw> ehs; 12.01.2010-y; btspaplg;gl;Ls;s gzpnkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lk; Fwpj;j Mizfis> gzpnkk;ghl;Lf;F fUj;jpayhf gpd;gw;wp> Xa;t{jpa gyd;fis kl;Lk; ,f;fojk; btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; tHq;fyhk; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.” 5.The demand made by Thiru.D.Jayaseelan was that this clarification should be retrospectively applied with effect from G.O(Ms)No.337 Higher Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009. His request was not accepted. Hence he filed W.P(MD)No.9449 of 2015. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, he passed away and his wife came on record. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 6.The learned single Judge rejected the said demand vide order dated 09.03.2022. Challenging the same, this intra-court appeal came to be filed. 7.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of Appeal and called upon us to allow this Writ Appeal. 8.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order of the learned single Judge is well reasoned and that it does not call for interference. 9.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. 10.As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, both G.O(Ms)No. 337 Higher Education (C2) Department dated 27.08.2009 and G.O(Ms)No.4 Higher Education Department dated 12.01.2010 are unambiguous. On a plain reading of the said GOs, one can conclude that it was applicable only to serving teachers. Those GOs by no stretch of imagination could have been extended to benefit the retired teachers. Only by virtue of Letter No.234 dated 07.12.2012, 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 the benefit was extended to retired teachers also. This impugned Letter No.234 dated 07.12.2012 is a beneficial one. It is more in the nature of concession. 11.The learned single Judge had observed as follows: “6. On perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.337, G.O.Ms.No.4 and the clarification Letter, dated 07.1.2.2012, it is seen in the G.O. MS. No. 337, an upgrading Scheme was introduced in the said Government Order. Since certain representations were submitted before the Government, the Government has clarified through G.O.Ms.No.4 to grant the benefits notionally from the completion of 10 years and the monetary benefits from the date of the G.O. Ms. No. 337. Since both the Government Orders are not covering the persons who have already retired prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.337, a clarification was sought and the Government has issued the clarification vide letter dated 07.12.2012. Whenever, any Scheme is introduced, the persons who are serving as on the date of the Government Order are eligible to the benefits. The Government has every power to grant the monetary benefits based on the financial status of the Government and fix a cut off date for issuance of monetary benefits. This is purely a policy decision of the Government. In the impugned, it has been stated as under. “4. gzpNkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpd;gbahd gzg;ad;fs; murhiz ntspaplg;glk; ehspypUe;J kl;LNk toq;fg;gLk; vd;gjhy;> gzpNkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lk; 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 Fwpj;j Mizfis> gzpNkk;ghl;Lf;Fj; jFjp ngw;W 27.08.2009-f;F Kd;dh; gzp Xa;T ngw;w Mrphpah;fSf;F fUj;jpayhf gpd;gw;wp Xa;Tjpa gyd;fis kl;Lk; Miz ntspaplg;gLk; ehs; (07.12.2012) Kjy; toq;fyhk; vd ghh;it 1-y; fhZk; fbjj;jpy; Miz ntspaplg;gl;lJ. VdNt gzpNkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpd;gbahd gzg;gaid 27.08.2009f;F Kd;dh; gzp Xa;T ngw;w Mrphpah;fSf;F 27.08.2009 Kjy; toq;FtJ njhlh;ghd jq;fsJ Nfhhpf;ifia Vw;f ,ayhJ vd;W njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.” 7. In the impugned order, it has been stated that for any upgradation Scheme, the monetary benefits would be eligible from the date of issuance of the Government Order. In G.O.Ms.No.337, the Government has not dealt with the persons who have retired prior to the issuance of Government Order. When representations were submitted to grant the same benefits for the persons who retired prior to 27.08.2009, the Government has issued the impugned communication, dated 07.12.2012, granting the benefits from the date of issuance of the letter. Infact the Government has taken the period prior to 27.08.2009 notionally and has granted benefits. There is no infirmity in the said clarification. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case and any discrimination as alleged in this writ petition. The petitioner submitted that only the petitioner has been left out and other 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 persons who have been retired along with the petitioner prior to 27.08.2009 granted the monetary benefits. But the petitioner has not placed any such evidence before this Court. If the petitioner has submitted any such evidence along with the representation, then the respondents may consider the same.” 12.We are of the view that the learned single Judge adopted the right approach to repel the appellant's challenge. Interference with the said impugned order is not warranted. 13.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 13.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 Chennai – 600 025. G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and K.RAJASEKAR, J. MGA W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.1539 of 2025 13.06.2025 10/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis