Statutory Authorities Have a Duty to Decide on Representations, Cannot Keep Them Pending Indefinitely: Madras High Court - 2025-06-05

Madras High Court: Authorities Cannot Indefinitely Delay Decisions on Employee Representations

CHENNAI: In a significant directive reaffirming the obligations of statutory authorities, the Madras High Court has ruled that an authority’s failure to consider and dispose of a representation amounts to a “dereliction of duty.” Justice Vivek KumarSingh , presiding over the Madurai Bench, instructed the Director of Collegiate Education to consider a representation from a terminated Guest Lecturer within two months.

The Court emphasized that when a representation is submitted, a duty is cast upon the authority to pass appropriate orders one way or another, rather than leaving the matter pending indefinitely.

Case Background

The petition was filed by Dr. Shanmugalingam , who holds M.Sc., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry. He served as a Guest Lecturer at the Government Arts College in Paramakudi from June 2017 to September 2024, receiving a monthly honorarium of Rs. 25,000. He contended that his service was terminated without notice or valid reason following a departmental enquiry.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner argued that he was abruptly removed from the roster of Guest Lecturers for the academic year 2024-2025. This action followed an enquiry initiated based on a complaint by an individual named Malathy . Although Dr. Shanmugalingam participated in the enquiry and submitted his defense, he claimed it was not considered.

His subsequent representation dated November 27, 2024, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of arrears, went unanswered. This inaction prompted him to approach the High Court, seeking a directive to compel the authorities to consider his plea.

Court's Observations on "Dereliction of Duty"

While refraining from commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim for reinstatement, the Court focused on the procedural lapse by the respondents. Justice Singh underscored the principle that non-consideration of a representation by a statutory authority is a failure of its duty.

In its order, the Court observed:

"It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India..."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive to the respondents. They are required to consider Dr. Shanmugalingam 's representation dated November 27, 2024, on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The process must be completed within two months from the receipt of the court's order and must include providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to government bodies and administrative authorities of their responsibility to address grievances and representations in a timely and lawful manner, reinforcing a key tenet of administrative law and natural justice.