Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MS. P.T. ASHA, J
S.Ashok police constable 460, 1st Battalion Armed force Coimbatore District – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilndau Rep by the Director General of Police Tamilnadu Police Department Kamarajar salai, Kailasapuram,Mylapore Chennai-4 – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Varungandhi
For the Respondents: Mr.P. Balathandayutham,SGP for R.1 to R.4

The court establishes the necessity for timely administrative resolution of appeals regarding increments following the expiration of imposed punishments.

Headnote:This case concerns a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus for the expeditious disposal of an appeal regarding the restoration of annual increments. The petitioner contended that despite the punishment period's expiry, their increment was not restored, and their appeal was unresolved. The court directed that the appeal be resolved on merits within three weeks. The crux of the court's finding is the requirement for timely resolution of administrative appeals, as underscored in this instance. The court's order encapsulates a mandatory timeframe that underscores the urgency in addressing such disputes.

Table of Content
1. details regarding the petitioner's request and grievance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's directive for timely resolution of the appeal. (Para 4)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose the petitioners Appeal dated

5.1.2026 expeditiously and consequently direct the respondents to restore the petitioners annual increments with effect from 1.1.2025 with all consequential monetary and service benefits, within the stipulated time.”

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the expiry of the punishment period imposed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 03.03.2022, whereby the petitioner’s increment was postponed for two years, the respondents have failed to restore the petitioner’s increment. Further, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said punishment order, as well as against the non-restoration of increment, dated 05.01.2026, before the 2nd respondent, has not been disposed of to date.

3.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner and the absence of any serious objection from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 05.01.2026, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document