Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
C. Vilvanathan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.No.16294 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Sarath Chandran
For the Respondents: R.U. Dinesh Rajkumar, V. Vijay Shankar

A similarly placed employee is entitled to the same relief granted to others in verified past cases, even if the State claims related matters are sub judice, provided the legal position has been previously affirmed by the Court.

Headnote:The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to challenge an order of the Accountant General affecting the petitioner's pensionary benefits. The core fact involves the refusal of the authorities to count the service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment, limiting the approval to a later date. The Court examined the principle of parity with respect to similarly situated employees. The main issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to the counting of past service for pensionary benefits despite the State's contention of sub judice status. The Court held that when an identical claim has been resolved in favor of other employees whose appeals were dismissed, the refusal to grant the same benefit to a similarly placed person is unsustainable. The ratio follows the precedent set in earlier litigation concerning the same department. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and the respondents are directed to recalculate pensionary benefits with interest, subject to the final outcome of pending special leave petitions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges denial of counting service from initial appointment date for pension calculation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court grants relief based on precedent of similarly placed individuals despite state's objection. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. writ petition allowed with directions to revise pensionary benefits. (Para 7)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 05.08.2024 and to direct the respondents to count the petitioner’s service in the 5^th respondent school from 03.07.1996 and to revise pensionary and other terminal benefits with interest.

2. The petitioner completed B.Sc.,(Maths) and B.Ed. and was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5^th respondent school on 03.07.1996. He was later promoted as B.T.Assistant (Maths) from 01.08.2006 and granted Selection Grade from 01.08.2016. He retired from service on 31.03.2023.

3. 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.

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

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

6. 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 entitled for 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 Additional Government Pleader cannot be countenanced. Considering the above, the petitioner, who is similarly placed is therefore entitled to the very same relief.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed subject to the result of the SLP and the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 05.08.2024 is hereby quashed 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 accordingly with appropriate interest. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP.T. Asha, JC. Vilvanathan – AppellantVersusState Of Tamil Nadu – RespondentW.P.No.16294 of 2026

A similarly placed employee is entitled to the same relief granted to others in verified past cases, even if the State claims related matters are sub judice, provided the legal position has been previously affirmed by the Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
C. Vilvanathan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.No.16294 of 2026