VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

B.Subhashini v. State of Tamilnadu

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
24 February 2026
Bench
G.R.Swaminathanauthor, S Justice R. Kalaimathi
Case no.
REV.APLC(MD) 16/2026

Judgment

O R D E R (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner has filed this review application to review a part of the order dated 15.11.2018 made in W.A.(MD)No.871 of 2011. The writ appeal was filed by the State questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the review applicant. The review applicant joined the police department as Sub Inspector of Police on 16.04.1999. She was unauthorizedly absent from

23.01.2004. She was declared as a deserter. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Later, she was removed from service. Questioning the same, the review applicant filed W.P.(MD)No.10189 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 03.12.2010 and the writ petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. Challenging the same, the State filed writ appeal. Before us, the review applicant submitted that she would forgo her claim for backwages. We recorded the same. We had further recorded that the writ petitioner had also stated that she would forgo her claim for further promotion. The review applicant on the last occasion submitted that her statement was misconstrued by us and that she never gave up her claim for promotion. It is well settled that a review application is maintainable before the very same Bench which recorded her statement.

3.It is relevant to note that the order partly allowing the writ appeal was passed by one of us (Mr.Justice G.R.Swaminathan). On the last occasion, when we condoned the delay, we had recorded that we are inclined to accept the explanation put forth by the review applicant. Therefore, Paragraph No.6 of the judgment dated 15.11.2018 made in W.A.(MD)No.871 of 2011 is modified. We make it clear that the writ petitioner will be entitled to promotion.

4.This review application is allowed on these terms. No costs. (G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,)

24.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:

1.The Secretary to Government, Police Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004.

3.The Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai-600 004.

4.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and

R.KALAIMATHI, J. ias Rev.Apl.C.(MD)No.16 of 2026 in W.A.(MD)No.871 of 2011

24.02.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI Rev.Apl.C.(MD)No.16 of 2026 in W.A.(MD)No.871 of 2011 B.Subhashini ... Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Police Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004. 3.The Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai-600 004. 4.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer: Review Application is filed under Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w. Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order made in W.A.(MD)No.871 of 2011 dated 15.11.2018 passed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Shaji Bino, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2. Mr.Gnanasekaran, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R3 & R4.

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.