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)(Ker) 35325


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Jagadeesh, V.Renju
For the Respondents: Sachin Ramesh

The Court may issue an interim order granting continuance in service during the pendency of a representation if no replacement has been appointed to the post, while directing the authority to dispose of the representation within a stipulated time frame.

Headnote:The dispute concerns the termination of service of the petitioners who were working under a government-constituted welfare board. The petitioners challenged their disengagement and sought a direction for the consideration of their pending representation regarding their service continuance. The court noted that although the petitioners' services were terminated, no replacements had been hired. The core issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to temporary relief against termination while their representation remains pending before the authority. The court determined that in the absence of new appointments to the vacated roles, maintaining the status quo was equitable, thereby balancing administrative discretion with the petitioners’ right to have their representations considered by the competent authority. The court directed the respondent board to decide on the petitioners' representation within two months, while ordering that the petitioners be permitted to continue in employment until such a decision is rendered.

Table of Content
1. court intervention to preserve status quo pending administrative disposal of grievances. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction not to terminate their service under the 2nd respondent Board and also seek a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation seeking their continuance in service. Petitioners seek for an expeditious disposal of Ext.P7 representation, which is stated to be pending before the 2nd respondent.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits that the service of the petitioners has already been terminated with effect from 01.06.2026. Learned counsel further submitted that though by an oral direction the petitioners were disengaged, no other person has been appointed in their place. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Taking into consideration the fact that no other person has been appointed in the place of the petitioners, it is ordered that till a decision is taken as directed above, petitioners shall be permitted to continue in employment. Petitioners’ claim for regularisation is left open.

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