Allowed¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu v. S.Sumathi

Madras HC18 Sept 2025CMP(MD)/8571/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; review applications Rev.Aplc.(MD)SR.Nos.40769 and 52293 of 2025; delay of 211 days and 269 days; old pension scheme; representation dated 10.11.2008; Director of Elementary Education; Joint Secretary to the Government; Additional Advocate General; writ appeals; counters filed; one more opportunity; Registry to number and list on 09.10.2025; order dated 18.09.2025; C.M.P.(MD); Madurai Bench.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 211 and 269 days in filing Rev.Aplc.(MD)SR.Nos.40769 and 52293 of 2025 condoned; Registry to number the review applications, if otherwise in order, and list them on 09.10.2025. ¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Sumathi — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.11494 of 2025 in Rev.Aplx .(MD)SR.No.52293 of 2025

¶2

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8571 and 11494 of 2025 in Rev.aplc.(MD)SR.No.40769 and 52293 of 2025

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶4

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J .)

¶5

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 211 and 269 days respectively in filing the above review applications in Rev.Aplc. (MD)SR.Nos.40769 and 52293 of 2025.

¶6

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it has been contended by the Joint Secretary to the Government that the orders, which are the subject matter of the review, necessarily have to be revisited by the Court. It had been contended that the writ petitioners had approached the Court by claiming benefits under the old pension scheme and based on a claim of representation dated 10.11.2008 submitted to the Director of Elementary Education. It is contended that this particular representation will have to be examined on its merits and therefore, the review application will have to be heard by the Court.

¶7

_____________ Page 1 of 3_

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶9

C.M.P.(MD)No.11494 of 2025 in Rev.Aplx .(MD)SR.No.52293 of 2025

¶10

Insofar as the delay is concerned, it had been submitted that the delay was bona fide and for reasons which were beyond the control of the petitioners that the certified copy of the judgment was not received by the department within the expected time.

¶11

We have directed the learned Additional Advocate General to serve copies on the learned counsel, who had appeared in the writ appeals before this Court. The learned counsel had also entered appearance and counters are also filed. However, we would grant one more opportunity for all the points to be agitated in the review application.

¶12

For all these reasons, these petitions are allowed and the delay is condoned. Registry is directed to number the review applications, if it is otherwise in order and list the applications on 09.10.2025.

¶13

¶14

[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 18.09.2025

¶15

_____________ Page 2 of 3_

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.M.P.(MD)No.11494 of 2025 in Rev.Aplx .(MD)SR.No.52293 of 2025

¶18

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶19