Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
DR.MAUSUMI GOSWAMI – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary – Respondent
WP No.1606 of 2026|W.M.P.No.1652 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Deepak
For the Respondents: V. Sudha, A. Saravanan
When an employer keeps a relieving order in abeyance and refers the matter to a grievance committee, the employee should be reinstated to service pending the final decision of the committee.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash a relieving order dated 23.09.2025. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, alleged that she was relieved from service without a show cause notice and had been denied promotions despite possessing significant post-doctoral experience. The court noted that the respondents had subsequently kept the impugned relieving order in abeyance and treated the petitioner's representation as a grievance under the HR Manual. The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be reinstated into service given that the relieving order was kept in abeyance. The court reasoned that since the respondents had already stayed the operation of the relieving order and referred the matter to a Grievance Committee, the petitioner ought to be restored to her position pending the final outcome of the grievance process. There shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the petitioner's appointment and the issuance of the impugned relieving order without notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the respondents' decision to keep the relieving order in abeyance and refer the matter to a grievance committee. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direction for immediate reinstatement of the employee pending the resolution of grievances. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
Prayer :
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to impugned relieving letter vide VIT/HR/2025/5277 dated 23.09.2025 passed by the 4th Respondent and quash the same, and further direct the 2nd Respondent to allow the Petitioner to continue her employment.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Deepak
for M/s.Apex Law Office LLP
For Respondent(s): Mrs.V.Sudha,
Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for R-1
Mr.A.Saravanan for RR-2 to 4
ORDER
Aggrieved by the relieving order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry at Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore on 03.06.2019. Despite the petitioner having possessed post doctoral experience of seven years, he was not granted promotion whereas her juniors were promoted to higher posts. Hence, the petitioner submitted several requests to senior authorities concerned seeking a fair and transparent evaluation and level upgradation to which, no response was forthcoming. Further, the petitioner’s annual increment for the year 2025-26 was abruptly withheld and thereafter, the impugned relieving letter dated 23.09.2025 was issued to her without any show cause notice. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, today, the respondents filed a letter dated 04.12.2025 stating that the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 has been kept in abeyance and the petitioner’s letter dated 22.10.2025 is treated as a Grievance as provided under Clause 6.3 of the HR Manual and the same is forwarded to the Grievance Committee. He further submitted that the petitioner may be reinstated into service.
4. Learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the relieving order under challenge has been kept in abeyance and that the Grievance committee will hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel that relieving order impugned has been kept in abeyance, there shall be a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to ventilate her grievances, if any, before the Grievance Committee and thereafter, the authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
