Venkatesan v. The District Collector

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.

¶2With consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶3The short grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondents have placed the petitioner under suspension as early as on 18.02.2023 and have been continuing the petitioner under suspension by paying only 50% of the subsistence allowance contrary to the Rules. Hence, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 10.06.2026 requesting for enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% with effect from September 2023. The said representation has not been considered by the respondents till date. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to consider the said representation.

¶4During the course of hearing, it is noticed that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing WP(MD)No.16016 of 2023 and the said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024 directing the third respondent therein, namely the Block Development Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.03.2023 in the light of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81 (Human Resources Development) dated 04.08.2022.

¶5It is informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no orders have been passed by the third respondent, who is arrayed as the second resondent herein as on date pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.11.2024.

¶6For the reasons best known, instead of taking appropriate steps against the non-compliance of the order dated 12.11.2024, once again the petitioner has approached this Court for consideration of his representation. Notwithstanding the review of suspension in case if the petitioner is continued under suspension beyond six months, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to enhance the subsistence allowance in terms of the Rules.

¶7In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 10.06.2026 submitted by the petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules as expeditously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court also expects the second respondent herein to review the order of suspension as directed by this Court in WP(MD)No.16016 of 2023 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

29.07.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM TO

¶1The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶2The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Aranthangi,Pudukkottai. MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM

WP(MD) No.21604 of 2026 Date : 29/07/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/07/2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Aranthangi,Pudukkottai. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 10.06.2026 seeking enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% with effect from September 2023, together with payment of the consequential arrears and Dearness Allowance arrears, within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayendiran For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu