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) 26934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J
D.Vimal Anand – Appellant
Versus
The Director Of School Education – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Elumalai
For Respondent(s): Ms.Mythree Chandru, SGP for R.1 to R.5

Mandamus issued directing consideration of regularization of suspension period as duty post-revocation due to unaddressed representation.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Article 226 of the Constitution of India enables issuance of writ of mandamus. Petitioner suspended due to arrest on false complaint and detention beyond 48 hours; suspension revoked after interim stay quashing FIR. Court finds representations for regularization of suspension period as duty with benefits not considered. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as directing regularization of suspension from 22.09.2018 to reinstatement. Ratio: Limited relief claimed; unconsidered representation dated 05.12.2025 warrants direction for merits-based decision. Third Paragraph: Writ Petition allowed; respondents 2 and 3 to consider representation within three weeks.

Table of Content
1. suspension due to false complaint; revocation after quashing fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. direct consideration of regularization representation on merits. (Para 6)

ORDER

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

“directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner from 22.09.2018 to the date of reinstatement in service as duty period for all purposes with all consequential service and monetary benefits based on the petitioners representation dated 19.11.2024 , 15.12.2025 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Honble court.

2. The petitioner would submit that based on a false complaint, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for more than 48 hours. On account of his detention, the 3rd respondent had suspended him from service.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. By order dated 14.06.2019, this Court had granted an order of interim stay. Pursuant to this order, the 4th respondent had revoked the suspension and reinstated the petitioner into service.

4. After resuming duty, the petitioner had made several representations seeking regularization of the period of suspension as duty period for all purposes, with all consequential service and monetary benefits. However, despite repeated requests, the respondents have not considered his representations. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the limited relief claimed by the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2025 has not been considered to date, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s representation dated

05.12.2025 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
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