Disposed¶35

Mathias v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Sept 2025WP(MD)/22359/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD)No.22359 of 2021, Mathias v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, 16.09.2025, Abdul Quddhose J.): writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 against rejection of interest claim on missing TPF credit (Rs.43,713) of deceased teacher Anbin Jothi, transferred to GPF No.EDN 135544 on 04.05.2016; interest paid only up to July 1996 (last TPF recovery); claim for interest beyond July 1996 till 04.05.2016 rejected for want of any Government Order/Rule and as involving disputed questions of fact; writ disposed of with liberty to file civil suit; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit, if so advised, for payment of interest in respect of the missing credit beyond July 1996 to 04.05.2016; no costs awarded. ¶35

Mathias Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit, if so advised, for payment of interest in respect of the missing credit beyond July 1996 to 04.05.2016; no costs awarded.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's wife (deceased teacher Anbin Jothi) is entitled to interest on the missing credit in her TPF account for the period beyond July 1996 up to 04.05.2016, i.e., whether any Government Order or Rule supports such entitlement. +1 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Because the petitioner placed no Government Order or Rule on record to prove entitlement to interest beyond July 1996, and the claim involves disputed questions of fact, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶33

Key takeaways

A petitioner seeking interest beyond July 1996 must necessarily file a civil suit against the respondents, as it is a disputed question of fact; the writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to file such a suit, if so advised, for interest on the missing credit beyond July 1996 to 04.05.2016, with no costs.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mathias, husband of the late teacher Anbin Jothi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 21.06.2021 (Na.Ka.No/Aa 2/2021) of the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Cheramahadevi, and to direct disbursement of interest from 23.02.1990 to 04.05.2016 on the missing fund credited in his wife's TPF account (No. 567592) from 23.02.1990 up to 04.08.1996, which was transferred to her GPF account No.EDN 135544 only on 04.05.2016. Interest had been paid only up to July 1996, being the month of the last TPF salary recovery, the missing credit having been computed at Rs.43,713/- on the certificate of balance; respondents contended no Government Rule or Order provided for interest beyond July 1996. The petitioner produced no Government Order or Rule substantiating the claim; the Court found disputed questions of fact involved, held it could not grant relief in writ jurisdiction, and disposed of the petition granting liberty to file a civil suit for interest beyond July 1996 to 04.05.2016. No costs. (Single Judge: Abdul Quddhose, J.; decided 16.09.2025.)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22359 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.22359 of 2021

Mathias

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

¶12

2.The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General, 261, Anna Salai, Chennai-600018.

¶13

3.The Commissioner, Government Data Centre, Anna University Campus, Gandhi Mandapam Road, Chennai-600028.

¶14

4.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.22359 of 2021

¶18

5.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶19

6.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Cheramahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶20

7.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Pottal, Cheranmahadevi Union, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the sixth respondent in Na.Ka.No/Aa 2/2021 dated 21.06.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the sixth respondent to disburse the eligible interest amount from the period of 23.02.1990 to 04.05.2016 for the missing fund credited in the deceased petitioner's TPF account from 23.02.1990 up to 04.08.1996, which was already transferred in the deceased petitioner's GPF account No.EDN 135544 on 04.05.2016 from the deceased petitioner's TPF account No. 567592.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Russel Raj For R-1, R-3 to R-7 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Standing Counsel

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.22359 of 2021

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the sixth respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner's wife to pay interest for the period beyond July 1996 till 04.05.2016 in respect of the missing credit in the TPF account of the petitioner's wife Anbin Jothi.

¶28

Under the impugned order, the request of the petitioner's wife has been rejected on the ground that the missing credit was transferred into the GPF account of the petitioner's wife without any delay by the sixth respondent.

¶29

According to the respondents, since the last recovery of TPF was made from the salary of the deceased teacher / petitioner's wife in July 1996, the interest was calculated up to the period of July 1996 and based on the certificate of balance, the missing credit was arrived at Rs.43,713/-. According to the respondents, there is no Rule or Order of the Government to pay interest for the petitioner's wife beyond July 1996. Therefore, the respondents have contended that the petitioner's wife is not entitled for interest from July 1996 in respect of the missing credit.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.22359 of 2021

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the interest has been paid by the respondents only up to July 1996, the petitioner's wife is entitled to receive the interest for the subsequent period till 04.05.2016. The petitioner has also not placed on record before this Court to prove that under the Government Order or Rule, the petitioner's wife is entitled to claim the interest beyond July 1996. Since disputed questions of fact are involved and the petitioner has not placed any Government Order / Rule to enable the petitioner's wife to get interest beyond July 1996, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. If the petitioner desires to seek interest beyond the period of July 1996, the petitioner will have to necessarily file a civil suit against the respondents, as it is a disputed question of fact.

¶34