R.Viswanathan v. State of Tamilnadu
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
W.P. No.4044 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.02.2026CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P. No.4044 of 2026R.Viswanathan… PetitionerVs1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 0092.The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006… RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 14.5.2024 and consequently implement the G.O.Ms.No.278 Health and Family Welfare (L1)Department dated 13.6.2019 thereby to give promotion to the petitioner from June 1978 the date of completion of Sanitary Inspector Course and all other benefits par with the Juniors T.V.Durai and M.Janarthanam as per the proceedings of the respondents in R.No.14683/MP1/S3/2016 dated 12.9.2023 and R.No.14683/MP1/S3/2016-31 dated 30.10.2023For petitioner: Mr.A.R.NixonPage 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.4044 of 2026 For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan, Government AdvocateORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 14.5.2024 and consequently implement the G.O.Ms.No.278 Health and Family Welfare (L1)Department dated 13.6.2019 thereby to give promotion to the petitioner from June 1978 the date of completion of Sanitary Inspector Course and all other benefits par with the Juniors T.V.Durai and M.Janarthanam as per the proceedings of the respondents in R.No.14683/MP1/S3/2016 dated 12.9.2023 and R.No.14683/MP1/S3/2016-31 dated 30.10.20232.Heard the learned counsels on either side.
With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the first respondent Department and was subsequently promoted and thereafter retired from service. He further submitted that while the petitioner was 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 Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.4044 of 2026passed 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 petitioner has not filed the petitions, he is also eligible for the said benefit and therefore, he made several representations to the respondents which evoked no response.
Operative part
He also submitted that the petitioner had sent a representation lastly on 14.05.2024 respectively, however, no response and hence, the present Petition.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 14.05.2024 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 Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.11.02.2026(1/2) Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/NolokPage 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.4044 of 2026M. DHANDAPANI, J.lokTo1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 0092.The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006W.P. No.4044 of 202611.02.2026(1/2)Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.