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) 20874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
A.Arockiyasami – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
WP No. 7092, 7098 and 7099 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/S. A.R.Nixon
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Tippusulthan, GA

Writ of Mandamus can compel authorities to respond to representations when previous court directives suggest eligibility for benefits.

Headnote:This judgment examines petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction for the disposal of representations regarding promotions for Public Health Inspectors. The Court orders the second respondent to address the representation within six weeks, recognizing eligibility for benefits based on prior judicial decisions. The main issues included non-responsiveness of the respondents to the representations and the appropriate time frame for resolution.

Table of Content
1. prayers for directions based on previous g.o. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court orders resolution of pending representations. (Para 4 , 5)

For Petitioner(s): M/S. A.R.Nixon in all the writ petitions For Respondent: Mr.K.Tippusulthan, GA in all the writ petitions COMMON ORDER The petitions have been filed seeking a direction the respondents to dispose of the Petitioners representation dated 25.04.2024 and 25.04.2024 respectively and consequently implement the G.O.Ms.No. 278 Health and Family Welfare (L1) Department, Dated 13.06.2019 thereby give promotion to the petitioner from June 1977 the date of completion of Sanitary Inspector Course and all other benefits par with the Junior T.V.Durai and M.Janarthanam as per the proceedings of the Respondents dated 12.09.2023 in R.No. 14683 /MP1/S3/2016 and R.No.14683/ MP1/S3/ 2016-31, dated 30.10.2023.

2. Heard the learned counsels on either side. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the first respondent Department and were subsequently promoted and thereafter retired from service. He further submitted that while the petitioners were in service, due to disparity among Health Inspectors, litigations were filed before the Tribunal and this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court and pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Government had passed G.O.Ms No.278 dated 13.06.2019, giving retrospective promotion to 132 petitioners therein and as per the judicial pronouncement, even though the petitioners have not filed the petitions, they are also eligible for the said benefit and therefore, they made several representations to the respondents which evoked no response. He also submitted that the petitioners had sent a representation on 25.04.2024 respectively, however, no response and hence, the present Petitions.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 25.04.2024 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no orders as to 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