Madras High Court
WP(MD)/24905/2019 of M.ESAKKI Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 13 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019
CNR:{HCMD011108512019}
M.Esakki
S/o.Muthu,
2/412-23 Ponnamma Nagar,
R.K.Nagar, Ward No.5,
South Kallidaikurichi,
Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep by its Secretary to Government,
Finance Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-009.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District-627 002.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kallidaikurichi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Manjjolai outpost,
Kallidaikurichi Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.J1/63746/2018 dated 21.12.2018
issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to sanction all the retirement
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019
benefits, gratuity and pension with effect from 1998 and pay all terminal benefits with arrears to the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. T.R. Subramanian
For Respondent(s):
Mr. C. Jeganathan
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 21st December 2018, where under the request of the writ petitioner for payment of gratuity and other retirement benefits towards her service for 36 long years, till 1998 is declined and the petitioner also asked for a consequential Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to sanction all the retirement benefits, gratuity and pension with effect from 1998 and pay all the terminal benefits with arrears to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. T.R. Subramanian, learner counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. C Jeganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the State.
3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
(a) The writ petitioner was employed as a part-time sweeper in the 4th respondent Police Station for a continuous period of 36 years from
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019 1962 to 1998, and since the petitioner was affected with throat cancer, she quit the job in 1998. In the meanwhile, a request of the petitioner for regularisation on 16th May 1986 was declined vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26th May 1986.
(b) Admittedly, the writ petitioner did not challenge the said communication dated 26th May 1986.
(c) The writ petitioner had admittedly quit the job in 1998 and after 21 years, the present writ petition is filed pursuant to the rejection of a request for retirement benefits and gratuity vide proceedings dated 21st December 2018.
4. The writ petition is certainly hit by inordinate delay and latches on the part of the writ petition. Further, the writ Petitioner had not challenged the earlier order dated 26th May 1986 refusing the request of writ petitioner for regularisation and being brought into the time scale of pay. I do not find any justifiable cause to interfere with the order impugned.
5. However it is an admitted fact, even on the side of the respondent that the writ petitioner continuously worked for the police establishment for 36 years from 1962 to 1998. Because the petitioner does not form part of the regular work establishment, the petitioner is not entitled to claim gratuity under the regular service/establishment rules
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019 applicable to the Police Department. The Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be made applicable to the 4th respondent Police Station as the petitioner claims to have worked in a police Outpost, where there may not be 10 or more persons employed.
6. However, considering the long and continuous employment of the writ petitioner while dismissing the writ petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresher representation to the respondent authorities claiming the limited relief of gratuity and if any such representation is made, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the said request with empathy and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation.
7. With the above liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No psm
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019 To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-009.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Dist-627 002.
3. The INspector of Police, Kallidaikurichi Police Station, Tirunelveli Dist
4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Manjolai outpost, Kallidaikurichi Police Station, Tirunelveli Dist
WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019 N.DILIP KUMAR, J. psm WP(MD) No. 24905 of 2019 13-10-2026