P.Rajkumar v. 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.2.The Executive Officer
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. 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…
Judgment
W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 17.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGHW.P.(MD)No.19390 of 2025P.Rajkumar ... Petitioner -vs-1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.
The Executive Officer, A/M.Kallazhagar Thirukovil, Madurai.... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.S.MahadevanFor R1: Mr.SS.Madhavan Additional Government PleaderFor R2: Mr.S.Manohar Standing Counsel____________Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 2025ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2025. 2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
According to the petitioner, he has been serving as a security staff at Arulmigu Kallazhagar Temple, Madurai District, since 2018 under temporary employment through outsourced agencies. Initially, he was appointed through a contractor company namely, NACSS with a monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-. Thereafter, the petitioner's services continued under a new agency, ALERT, from 2019 onwards, with a marginal increase in salary to Rs.7,600/- per month. However, despite rendering uninterrupted and dedicated service for over five years, there has been no further increase in salary since 2019, which has adversely affected the petitioner's ability to manage rising living expenses. The petitioner has also not been considered for permanent absorption, despite his long-standing service. The petitioner has made several oral requests and subsequently, a written representation dated 04.03.2025, requesting both salary revision and permanent ____________Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 2025employment. However, no action has been taken by the respondents till date. The continued denial of fair wages and regularization is unjust and arbitrary, particularly, when the petitioner is performing the same duties as regular employees. In the absence of any alternative remedy and in view of the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief.
Heard both sides.
Operative part
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 the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.____________Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 20256. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the second respondent to consider the same on its own merits.7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. NCC : Yes / No 17.07.2025Index : Yes / No (1/2)smn2To:-1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai.____________Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 20252.The Executive Officer, A/M.Kallazhagar Thirukovil, Madurai.____________Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 2025VIVEK KUMAR SINGH , J. smn2W.P.(MD)No.19390 of 202517.07.2025(1/2)____________Page 6 of 6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands 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.