Mohamed Fathima vs Government of Tamil Nadu - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47965

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
Mohamed Fathima – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition (Not specified)

Important Points

State authorities must ensure parity in salary disbursement when an employee is similarly situated to others who have already been granted financial arrears under a valid government order, especially when the appointment was duly sanctioned.

Subject

Service Law - Salary Arrears

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226

Headnote

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the disbursement of salary arrears for the period from 03.10.2022 to 31.03.2023, following an appointment in a minority institution. The case involves an application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relied upon a previous court order and an ensuing government order, which directed the disbursement of arrears to similarly placed individuals. The court addressed the issue of whether the respondent is obligated to process the petitioner's pending representations for salary arrears in light of existing parity. The ratio decidendi rests on the principle of parity, where the court observed that the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment as other employees who were granted relief under the same government notification. The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within six weeks, taking into account the earlier judicial precedent.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E.Martin Jaya Kumar
For the Respondents: V.Prasad

Table of Content
1. failure to disburse salary after proper appointment and sanction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. entitlement to salary parity based on prior judicial precedents and government orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 03.10.2022 to 31.03.2023 with all consequential attendant and monetary benefits in the light of G.O.(2D) No.32, dated 13.10.2025.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Commerce Department in a sanctioned vacancy in the 5th respondent-College, which is a minority institution. The petitioner had joined the duty on 03.10.2022. Necessary approval and sanction orders were granted to the petitioner by the respondents 3 and 4, confirming her appointment with effect from 03.10.2022. However, the petitioner had been paid with the salary only from 01.04.2023, and no salary was paid for the period 03.10.2022 to 31.03.2023. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted her representations on 12.06.2024 and 23.02.2026, to the respondents 1,3 and 4 requesting to release the arrears of salary for the period from 03.10.2022 to 31.03.2023.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite necessary approval and sanction orders have been issued to her, pursuant to her appointment in the 5^th respondent-College on 03.10.2022, she has been paid the salary only from 01.04.2023 and no salary was paid to her during the period 03.10.2022 to 31.03.2023. Further, the representations submitted by her, were also not considered by the respondents to date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a mandamus to the respondents to disburse her salary along with all consequential and monetary benefits.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to a similar case in W.P.(MD) No.13801 of 2025, wherein this Court had allowed the writ petition by order dated 30.04.2025. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13801 of 2025, the first respondent had passed G.O.(2D) No.32, Higher Education (E2) Department, dated 13.10.2025, directing to release the salary arrears to the similarly placed persons. Hence, he seeks the same parity may be shown to the petitioner also.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a mandamus is directed to the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass orders, by taking note of the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13801 of 2025, which has resulted in the issuance of G.O.(2D) No.32, Higher Education (E2) Department, dated 13.10.2025, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.