K.A. Sagaya Jayaraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the petitioner’s service from 05.06.1996 in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and to commute the pension in the light of the judgment passed in W.A. No.795 of 2021 dated 14.02.2024 by considering the representation submitted by the

¶17

Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 18990 of 2026

¶20

petitioner dated 25.08.2025 with all consequential and other benefits, including payment of arrears of pension.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Sarath Chandran For Respondent(s): Mr. A.R.Balaji Government Advocate R1 to R4

¶22

Mr. P.Manorajan Standing Counsel R5

¶23

Order

¶24

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶25

“To direct the respondents to count the petitioner’s service from 05.06.1996 in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and to commute the pension in the light of the judgment passed in W.A.

¶26

No.795 of 2021 dated 14.02.2024 by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.08.2025 with all consequential and other benefits, including payment of arrears of pension.”

¶27

The petitioner completed B.Sc.,(Zoology) and B.Ed. and was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in St. Joseph’s Higher Secondary School, Cuddalore a Government Aided Minority School. After completing ten years of service, he was granted Selection Grade from 15.09.2020. He retired from

¶28

Page2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 18990 of 2026

¶31

service on 31.05.2025.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that his service was approved with effect from 02.06.2003 instead of 03.07.1996, and based on that date, pension was calculated. He sought regularisation of service from the original date of appointment.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the petitioner’s claim by stating that the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶35

It is seen that a similarly placed person, J.Wesley Prabhu, had already filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2694 of 2020 and this Court observed that the petitioner therein was granted the relief claimed. Challenging the said order, the State has preferred the writ appeal in W.A.No.795 of 2021 and the same was dismissed. Pursuant to the order of the writ court, the second respondent issued orders in favour of the said J.Wesley Prabhu. Therefore, the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced. Considering the above, the petitioner, who is similarly placed is therefore entitled to the very same

¶36

Page3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 18990 of 2026

¶39

relief.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed subject to the result of the

¶41

SLP and the respondents are directed to count the service of the petitioner from 03.07.1996 and calculate the pensionary benefits and all consequential benefits

¶42

accordingly with appropriate interest. No costs.

¶43

04-06-2026

¶44

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

¶45

KAN

¶46

__________ Page4 of 6

¶47

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