Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
B.Kalyani - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Accountant General (A and E), - Respondent
W.P(MD) Nos.7251 to 7256 of 2026 W.M.P(MD)No.5956 of 2026 W.P(MD)No.7251 of 2026
Decided On : 27-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issue in multiple writ petitions heard together. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. adjourned pending full bench decision. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. dismissed per binding full bench orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
The issue that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is one and the same and as such they are taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr.K.Vinoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 6.
3. When these matters earlier came up for consideration before this Court on 27.03.2026, this Court having taken note of the fact that the very same issue was pending before the learned Full Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.2683 of 2025, adjourned the matter to be listed after the disposal of the matter by the learned Full Bench.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the matter that was pending before the learned Full Bench was already disposed of by order dated 07.04.2026 vide in W.A.(MD)Nos.2683 and 2860 of 2025 and in terms of the said decision of the learned Full Bench, the relief sought in these writ petitions cannot be granted.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also acceded to the said legal position.
6. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed in the light of the orders passed by the learned Full Bench in W.A. (MD)Nos.2683 and 2860 of 2025, dated 07.04.2026. No costs.
Writ petitions dismissed following binding Full Bench decision denying notional increments and pension revision for service break periods.
Prior interlocutory orders render appeals and petitions infructuous; other contentions left open.
The court determined the petitions were rendered infructuous, reflecting the principle that ongoing legal actions may lose relevance over time.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
