SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
M. Abbas – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition



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

The court directed authorities to consider the petitioner's grievance regarding salary arrears for an approved service period, emphasizing the principle of parity with similarly situated employees under existing government orders and earlier judicial precedents.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the disbursement of salary arrears for the period of 19.10.2023 to 31.07.2024 following official appointment as an assistant professor in a minority educational institution. Despite valid appointment and approval, the salary for the claimed period remained unpaid, leading to formal representations. The core issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to salary arrears based on the principle of parity with similarly placed employees. The court framed the issue around the failure of authorities to consider the petitioner's representations in light of prior judicial decisions and existing government orders. The ratio decidendi relies on the consistency and equal application of government policy for similarly situated employees. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation within six weeks, in line with prior judicial precedents.

Table of Content
1. factual context of appointment and delayed salary payment grievance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal contention based on parity with established precedents and existing government orders. (Para 3 , 4)
3. judicial directive to consider representations in accordance with parity and prior precedent. (Para 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 19.10.2023 to 31.07.2024 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 19.10.2023. Necessary approval and sanction orders were granted to the petitioner by the respondents 3 and 4, confirming his appointment with effect from 19.10.2023. However, the petitioner had been paid with the salary only from 01.08.2024, and no salary was paid for the period 19.10.2023 to 31.07.2024. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted his representations on 16.11.2024 and 23.02.2026, to the respondents 1,3 and 4 requesting to release the arrears of salary for the period from 19.10.2023 to 31.07.2024.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite necessary approval and sanction orders have been issued to him, pursuant to his appointment in the 5th respondent-College on 19.10.2023, he has been paid the salary only from 01.08.2024 and no salary was paid to him during the period 19.10.2023 to 31.07.2024. Further, the representations submitted by him, 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 the 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top