Disposed

M.Gopalan, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC7 Aug 2025WP(MD)/11311/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought approval of his appointment as Junior Assistant in a minority school with arrears of salary from 1984 to 1991, relying on earlier Division Bench orders. The Court declined to express any opinion on merits and directed the third respondent to consider his pending representation dated 09.08.2018 on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2018 and pass orders on merits in accordance with law.

M.Gopalan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.8631 of 2019

M.Gopalan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶13

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

5.The Correspondent, St.Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Vizhuthayambalam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner's service as Junior Assistant in the 5^th respondent

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶20

School, namely, St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Vizhuthayambalam, Kanyakumari District, with all attendant service benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance, during the period between 01.09.1984 to 31.05.1991, in terms of the Orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2008 in W.A.Nos.1329 of 2000, etc., batch, more particularly in W.P.No.3655 of 1987.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar for M/s.Issac Chambers

¶22

For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of petitioner's service as Junior Assistant in the 5^th respondent School with all attendant service benefits including the arrears of salary and allowance, during the period between 01.09.1984 to 31.05.1991, in terms of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2008 in W.A.Nos.1329 of 2000, etc., batch, more particularly in W.P.No.3655 of 1987.

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the fifth respondent School on 02.06.1982. The fifth respondent School is a minority institution and the School was awaiting sanction of the post for the purpose of getting grant from the Government. Earlier, there were several litigations

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶29

seeking sanction for the post and temporary arrangements were also made for the School. In this regard, reliance was placed on G.O.(Ms)No.950, Education Department, dated 31.07.1989, wherein, the Government has accorded temporary sanction for certain posts, which were found in the annexure of the Government Order. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for receiving salary from 01.09.1984 from the Government.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner substantiated the claim of the petitioner by stating that the School had already obtained order in his favour in W.P.No.3655 of 1987 dated 24.03.2008 and this order has not yet been implemented and they have also filed several Writ Petitions for implementation of the same. It is also stated that for the purpose of implementation of the said order, Contempt Petition has also been filed and the same is pending.

¶31

Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶32

I have gone through the prayer made in the Writ Petition. I am of the view that since the petitioner has sent a representation dated 09.08.2018 and the same is pending before the third respondent, it would be appropriate to direct

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶36

the third respondent to consider the said representation by taking note of the various judicial orders passed by this Court and pass appropriate orders on merits. This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.08.2018 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

07.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶42

¶43

1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶44

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶45

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶46

4.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶50

K.RAJASEKAR,J.

¶51

¶52

W.P.(MD).No.11311 of 2019

¶53

07.08.2025

¶54

Page 6 of 6

¶55

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

M.Gopalan, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gopalan, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Neelamegam Vs G.Chandeesh I.P.S.

Bharathidasan University Staff Welfare Association Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Suganthi Vs the Chief Educational Officer

C.Jeyakumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S. Thangabai Vs the District Collector

G.Manoharan, Vs the State Bank of India