Panimalar Polytechnic College Vs M. Gnanaprakasam

¶1

CRP No. 676 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 676 of 2024 AND CMP NO. 3421 OF 2024

¶7

Panimalar Polytechnic College (Jai Sakthi Educational Trust) NO.23, Railway Colony, 2nd Street, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 029 Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent Dr.Chinnadurai

¶8

Chinnadurai The Secretary and Correspondent, Panimalar Polytechnic College, (Jai Sakthi Educational Trust) NO.23, Railway Colony, 2nd Street, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 029

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

Vs

¶11

M. Gnanaprakasam S/o V.Muthu, No.18, Ambedkar Street, Raja Rathinam Flat (F1), Mogappair, Chennai 600 037

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order Dated 15.12.2023 passed IA.No. 1 of 2023 in OS.No. 7999 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.S. Soundararajan For Respondent(s): Mr.Mohammed Qamar Ahmed

¶16

Page1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

CRP No. 676 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.7999 of 2022 by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶21

Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint in O.S.No.7999 of 2022 on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff ought to have approached the AICTE Grievance Redressal Committee to redress his grievance with regard to service matter. Inspite of that, he filed the suit as such is not maintainable. But the respondent/plaintiff raised objections stating that the reason assigned by the revision petitioners as such is not maintainable and already the plaintiff was forced to tender his resignation and the management had withheld his original documents. Therefore, he filed a suit before the trial court and not before the AICTE. Considering that the trial judge held that as per the plaint averments, the dispute is only with regard to recovery of salary. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

__________ Page2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

CRP No. 676 of 2024

¶25

The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners would submit that if at all,

¶26

any grievance between employee and college authority, they have to go for AICTE Grievance Redressal forum, instead of that, filing of a civil suit as such is not maintainable.

¶27

By way of reply, the learned counsel for respondent would submit that the revision petitioners have submitted a letter dated 09.01.2023 to the Commissioner of Technical Education stating that due to the pendency of a civil suit in O.S.No.7999 of 2022, they wanted to try the adjudication before the court. So, they wanted to drop further action before the authority.

¶28

Heard and considered rival submissions made by both learned counsel for revision petitioners as well as respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

On perusal of records, the fact reveals that the revision petitioners in order to escape from the clutches of law, they have already forwarded a letter to the Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai to drop further proceedings and based on the letter, the Department of Technical Education has stopped further action. Therefore, now challenging the said letter, it is the issue with regard to arrears of salary, which is pending before the civil court. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has not sought for any relief. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial judge is

¶30

Page3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

CRP No. 676 of 2024

¶33

sustainable one, which requires no interference. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as no merit. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶34

civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

17-03-2026

¶36

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

RPP

¶38

To

¶39

The III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.