← Library
Madras High CourtWP/4216/2025disposed of with direction

M.Kumbaraj v. The Secretary To Government

2026-01-23Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. No. 4216 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.55188 of 2025

1. M.Kumbaraj

2. Venkatesh D

3. S.Vignesh

4. S.T.Deenadayalan

5. S.T.Vasudevan

6. Janarthanan.P ..Petitioners Vs

1. The Secretary to Government Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2. The Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034

3. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sathuvachari, Vellore

4. Sree Veeraraghava Swami Devasthanam Rep by Hereditary Trustee, HH Jeer of Sri Ahobila Muth, Tiruvallur-602 001 ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide permanent employment and also to provide its related benefits based on the representation of the petitioners dated 30.11.2024.

For Petitioner :

Mr.B.Govindaprabu For Respondents:

Mr.S. Ravichandran Addl. Govt. Pleader for HR & CE for RR1 to 3 Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth M. for R4

ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to provide permanent employment and other attendant service benefits by considering their joint representation dated 30.11.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed in different capacities such as casual labourers and caretakers viz., Byadha Gosalai Incharge etc., and have put in more than ten years of continuous service. Further he submitted that though they have been working in permanent posts, no order conferring permanent status has been passed in petitioners' favour. Therefore, ventilating their grievances, petitioners made a joint representation on 30.11.2024 seeking regularisation and other benefits. Since the same has not been favourably considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent is a Devasthanam/Temple administration and does not come within the purview of "State"

under Article 12 of the Constitution of India    and therefore, no writ would lie against the fourth respondent. She further contended that the issue involves disputed questions of fact relating to appointment, nature of engagement and continuity of service, which cannot be

adjudicated in a writ petition under Constitution of India. She also submitted that the petitioners'D representation has already been considered and the benefits admissible, subject to the financial and administrative position of the Devasthanam, have been communicated to the petitioners by way of letter, as stated in the counter affidavit. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed by the Devasthanam and not by the HR and CE Department directly. The issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to permanent status involves examination of factual aspects such as mode of appointment, sanctioned posts and continuity of service. Such disputed questions cannot be effectively adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. This Court notes the specific stand taken by the fourthrespondent in the counter affidavit that the petitioners'D representation dated 30.11.2024 has already been considered and that certain benefits, as admissible in accordance with the financial position and applicable rules of the

Devasthanam administered under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, have been extended to the petitioners. However, in order to ensure transparency and to avoid any ambiguity, this Court is of the view that the details of the benefits conferred upon the petitioners shall be communicated to the petitioners in a formal manner, if not already communicated, as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for.

7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. However liberty is granted to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum, if so advised No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23-01-2026 (1/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VSI-2 To

1. The Secretary To Government Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034

3. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment Department, Sathuvachari, Vellore

4. Sree Veeraraghava Swami Devasthanam Rep by Hereditary Trustee, HH Jeer of Sri Ahobila Muth, Tiruvallur-602 001 M.DHANDAPANI, J.

VSI-2 W.P. No. 4216 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.55188 of 2025 23-01-2026 (1/2)