Allowed

C.Christu Das v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Aug 2025WP(MD)/21935/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired BT Assistant challenged the rejection of his claim to special increment for 30 years of service. The State conceded the impugned order was unreasoned. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the District Educational Officer to pass a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to DEO, Marthandam to pass speaking order on the proposal dated 20.03.2025 within six weeks; no costs.

C.Christu Das Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.21935 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.21935 of 2025

C.Christu Das

: Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶11

The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

The District Educational Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

The Correspondent, Concordia Lutheran High School, Kalporapottai, Kollencode Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

: Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the files of the 4 th respondent pertaining to its proceeding in Aa.the.mu.No.1144/A2/2025 dated 21.05.2025 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant special increment to the

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.21935 of 2025

¶20

petitioner for completing 30 years in service as on 31.05.2024 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.SC.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh (R1 to R4) Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 4 th

¶24

respondent in Aa.the.mu.No.1144/A2/2025 dated 21.05.2025 and consequently to direct the respondent to grant special increment to the petitioner for completing 30 years in service as on 31.05.2024 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶25

2. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed in this writ

¶26

petition, notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with and this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.21935 of 2025

¶30

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as BT Assistant in the year 1994 and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024. He was also granted selection and special grade. A government order was also passed in regard to revision of pay. The petitioner states that another government order was also passed granting notional increments to the government service and hence, the petitioner is also entitled annual increments and revised pension. The petitioner sent a representation seeking for the same. However, the same was rejected by way of the impugned order. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶31

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would fairly concede that the impugned order does not contain any reasons and hence, this Court may set aside the impugned order and the matter may be remanded back to the fourth respondent.

¶32

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the submission made, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the fourth respondent.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.21935 of 2025

¶36

The fourth respondent shall consider and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law on the proposal made by the fifth respondent dated 20.03.2025, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

In fine, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as

¶38

to costs.

¶39

12.08.2025

¶40

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.21935 of 2025

¶44

To:-

¶45

The Secretary to Government, Rep. by its State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶46

The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶47

The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶48

The District Educational Officer, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.21935 of 2025

¶52

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶53

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.21935 of 2025

¶55

12.08.2025

¶56

6/6

¶57

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

C.Christu Das v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Christu Das 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

S.Karupaiah Pillai Vs Vijayalakshmi

D.Murasolimaran Vs The District Collector

Nagarajan Vs 1. Deivambal (Dead), 2. Muthiah

C.Selvan @ Selvaraj (Died), annakodi Vs a.Manickam

R.Srinivasan Vs The Director

Bharathamani Vs Muthulakshmi