Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Kala.v Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Kala.v Vs The Principal Secretary to GovernmentKala.v v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Dismissed¶28

Kala.v v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC23 Sept 2025WP(MD)/18435/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; petitioner absent on successive hearings. Keywords: V.Kala; P.Murugesan pensionary benefits; W.P(MD)No.18435 of 2022; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; Article 226 mandamus; Additional Fitment Table; Government letter No.51082/Pay Cell/2010-I dated 15.09.2010; Rule 4(i)&(iii) Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009; representation dated 24.12.2021; School Education Department respondents; District Educational Officer Srivilliputhur Virudhunagar; Accountant General (A&E); 'for dismissal' caption; no costs; no merits decided, no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs, because the petitioner did not appear when the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal' on 23.09.2025, nor on the previous hearing date of 09.09.2025. (Note: the dismissal sentence is split across ¶28 and ¶29 in the source; this evidence span covers the ¶28 portion.)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the Additional Fitment Table issued vide Government letter No.51082/Pay Cell/2010-I dated 15.09.2010, as per Rule 4(i)&(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009, and consequently to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband P.Murugesan with all monetary benefits, considering her representation dated 24.12.2021.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs, because the petitioner did not appear when the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal' on 23.09.2025, nor on the previous hearing date of 09.09.2025. (Note: the dismissal sentence is split across ¶28 and ¶29 in the source; this evidence span covers the ¶28 portion.)

Key takeaways

From the petitioner's repeated non-representation, the Court inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition; this inference was the operative basis for the dismissal.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J., 23.09.2025): W.P(MD)No.18435 of 2022 filed by V.Kala, an Article 226 writ-of-mandamus petition seeking extension of the benefits of the Additional Fitment Table (Government letter No.51082/Pay Cell/2010-I, dated 15.09.2010) as per Rule 4(i)&(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009, and consequential revision of the pensionary benefits of her deceased husband P.Murugesan pursuant to her representation dated 24.12.2021, was dismissed without adjudication of the merits. With no representation by the petitioner on 09.09.2025 and again on 23.09.2025 when the matter stood listed under the caption 'for dismissal', the Court inferred she was not interested in prosecuting the petition. No costs. No precedent was cited or discussed; no quantum was awarded.

A

W.P(MD)NO.18435 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED :23.09 .2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

W.P(MD)No.18435 of 2022

V.Kala

... Petitioner

.Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.

2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

3.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai.

4.The Joint Director(Vocational), Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai.

5.The District Educational Officer,

1/5

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

W.P(MD)NO.18435 of 2022

Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

6.The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General(A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefits of Additional Fitment Table issued in Government vide letter NO.51082/Pay Cell/2010-I, dated 15.09.2010 as per Rule 4(i)&(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009 and consequently revise the pensionary benefits of Petitioner’s deceased husband namely P.Murugesan with all monetary benefits by considering the representation, dated 24.12.2021 given by the Writ Petitioner, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino 1 to 5 Spl.Govt. Pleader For Respondent-6 :Mrs.Mahalakshmi Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The matter has been listed today under the caption ‘’for dismissal’’today. There is no representation on the side of the Petitioner once-again. Even in the last hearing date i.e., on 09.09.2025, there is no representation on the side of the Petitioner.

2/5

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

W.P(MD)NO.18435 of 2022

It can now be inferred that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the Writ Petition.

2.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non

prosecution. No costs.

23.09.2025

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn

To

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.

2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

3.The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai.

4.The Joint Director(Vocational),

3/5

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

W.P(MD)NO.18435 of 2022

Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai.

5.The District Educational Officer, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

6.The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General(A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J.

vsn

ORDER MADE IN

4/5

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

W.P(MD)NO.18435 of 2022

W.P(MD)No.18435 of 2022

23.09.2025

5/5

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the Additional Fitment Table issued vide Government letter No.51082/Pay Cell/2010-I dated 15.09.2010, as per Rule 4(i)&(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009, and consequently to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband P.Murugesan with all monetary benefits, considering her representation dated 24.12.2021.¶20

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶20
Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009Rule 4(i)&(iii)¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 24.12.2021; the relief sought included consideration of that representation for revision of the pensionary benefits of her deceased husband P.Murugesan within a time frame fixed by the Court.¶20
Prior proceeding
On the last hearing date 09.09.2025 there was no representation on the side of the petitioner; on 23.09.2025 the matter was again listed, this time under the caption 'for dismissal', and again there was no representation.¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
V.Kala¶7
respondent
The Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9¶10
S.Shaji Bino
respondent
The Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9¶11
S.Shaji Bino
respondent
The Commissioner of School Education, Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai¶12
S.Shaji Bino
respondent
The Joint Director(Vocational), Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex College Road, Chennai¶13
S.Shaji Bino
respondent
The District Educational Officer, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District¶41
S.Shaji Bino
respondent
The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General(A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018¶19
Mahalakshmi

Coram

AI extract

Abdul Quddhoseauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 23 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 11 Aug 2022
Case no.: WP(MD)/18435/2022
CNR: HCMD010758322022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Disposal: DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION
Case type: W.P(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Abdul Quddhose

Pi Opportunities Fund I Vs Financial Software and Systems Private Limited
22 Sept 2025
Paneerselvam.S Vs Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.
22 Sept 2025
Sebasthiyammal Vs District Educational Officer
22 Sept 2025
Soorian.P Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
23 Sept 2025
Krishnasamy T Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu
23 Sept 2025
Uthayakumar T Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
23 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

Kala.v v. The Principal Secretary to Government, WP(MD)/18435/2022 (MAD), decided on 23 September 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Tamil Nadu Revised Scale Pay Rules, 2009Rule 4(i)&(iii)

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 24.12.2021; the relief sought included consideration of that representation for revision of the pensionary benefits of her deceased husband P.Murugesan within a time frame fixed by the Court.
On the last hearing date 09.09.2025 there was no representation on the side of the petitioner; on 23.09.2025 the matter was again listed, this time under the caption 'for dismissal', and again there was no representation.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Abdul Quddhose

Parties & counsel