Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53552 (MAD)

A. Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2026-06-01

N Senthilkumar, S M Subramaniam

body2026
JUDGMENT : [ S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.] The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the writ petitioner challenging the writ order dated 20.01.2026 mainly on the ground that the writ Court held that the appellant is not entitled to wages for the period during which he has not served as P.G. Assistant. 2. The appellant was appointed as a Teacher in the Education Department on 01.07.2004. In the year 2008, he submitted a representation seeking alteration of his date of birth. Since the said representation was not considered, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19718 of 2017. The said writ petition itself came to be instituted after a lapse of about nine years from the date of submission of the representation. 3. The learned single Judge of this Court directed the revenue authorities to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The revenue authorities conducted an enquiry and did not recommend the case of the appellant for alteration of his date of birth. Challenging the rejection order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Joint Director of School Education, the appellant preferred W.P.No.16791 of 2025. The writ Court accepted the ground raised by the appellant that his actual date of birth is 14.03.1966 and that the date of birth recorded in his service records as 14.03.1965 is incorrect. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that, having accepted the correct date of birth of the appellant as 14.03.1966, the writ Court ought to have directed the respondents to pay salary for the entire period. 5. However, the fact remains that the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2026 and was permitted to retire from service. Since the appellant was holding the post of Teacher, his service was extended till the end of the academic year i.e., 31.05.2026. It is not in dispute that the appellant received the salary for the entire period during which he served as a teacher. The only grievance of the appellant is that he is entitled for the salary based on the corrected date of birth namely, 14.03.1966. In respect of the claim of the appellant, the principle of 'No Work No Pay’ would apply, since the appellant did not serve as a Teacher beyond 31.03.2026 as well as the extended period upto 31.05.2026. The only grievance of the appellant is that he is entitled for the salary based on the corrected date of birth namely, 14.03.1966. In respect of the claim of the appellant, the principle of 'No Work No Pay’ would apply, since the appellant did not serve as a Teacher beyond 31.03.2026 as well as the extended period upto 31.05.2026. Merely paying salary for the period during which the appellant had not worked as teacher would result in unjust gain and financial loss to the State Exchequer. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled to any further relief as sought for in the writ appeal. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.