2026:MHC:169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A.No. 2788 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.22641 of 2022

1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepuak, Chennai – 600 005.

2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Perunthitta Valagam, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ...Appellants Vs.

T.Azhaguvelu ...Respondent PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 26.07.2021 made in W.P.No.16167 of 2016 and allow this Writ Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Addl. Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Rajendiran, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Rajkumar *******

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Under assail is the Writ order dated 26.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.16167 of 2016.

2. The Director of Agriculture along with the Joint Director of Agriculture preferred the present intra-Court appeal mainly on the ground that the respondent, retired Assistant Agricultural Officer was not eligible for Special Grade on completion of his 20 years of service, in view of the pendency of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”] and the punishment subsequently imposed vide proceedings dated 27.12.2006.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the respondent completed 20 years of service in the year 2002. A charge memo was framed even prior to his completion of 20 years of service in the year 1996. Enquiry was conducted under Rule 17(b) of the Rules and the disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment on 27.12.2006 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Therefore, the respondent is not eligible for Special Grade.

4. Pertinently he sent a representation to the appellants on 19.03.2013 after reaching the age of superannuation on 31.01.2010. The said representation was rejected by the Director of Agriculture vide letter dated

09.09.2015, which came to be challenged by way of Writ proceedings.

5. In the rejection order, the 1^st appellant has clearly stated that as per the Government Orders, the Special Grade cannot be sanctioned when disciplinary actions under Rule 17B of the Rules is pending. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment and thus the writ Court has committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches, since it was filed after a lapse of six years from the date of retirement. The representation resulted in passing of the impugned order itself was filed before the Authorities in the year 2015 after a lapse of 3 years from the date of retirement.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that the writ Court has considered the fact that charge memo was issued in the year 1996 in respect of the incident that occurred in the year 1988-1989. There was a delay in disposal of the disciplinary proceedings and punishment was imposed in the year 2006. The delay in completing the departmental disciplinary proceeding was considered by the writ Court and such delay cannot be held against the employee. On this ground, the Writ Petition came to be allowed. It is contended that the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect expired in the year 2009 and the respondent was allowed to retire from service on 31.01.2010. Thus in any angle Special Grade ought to have been granted to the 1^st respondent in the year 2009. The learned counsel for the respondent would rely on certain clarificatory letters issued by the Government to show that the delay is to be taken into consideration while awarding Special Grade.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis on han