M.Sathiya v. The Registrar General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR M.Sathiya ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Registrar General High court of Judicature, Madras-600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge, Ariyalur District.

..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed call for the records passed by the second respondent in endorsement dated 08.08.2025 returning the petitioner's appeal dated 04.08.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to accept the petitioner appeal dated 04.08.2025 and forward the same to the first respondent within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner(s):

R.Prem Narayan For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, for R1 & R2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent in endorsement dated 08.08.2025 returning the petitioner's appeal dated 04.08.2025, and direct the 2nd respondent to accept the petitioner appeal dated 04.08.2025 and forward the same to the 1st respondent.

2. Mr.R.Prem Narayanan, learned counsel would submit that the appeal was returned only on the ground that there is a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal. Since the delay is meagre, appellate authority ought not to have returned the appeal and the appeal is to be decided on merits.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose by stating that the appeal papers were returned on the ground that it was not filed within the time limit. That apart, charges proved against the petitioner were grave in nature. Therefore, the authority is right in returning the appeal.

4. This Court is of the considered view that such meagre delay of 34 days in preferring an appeal should not take away the right of an aggrieved person to decide the appeal on merits. Every appeal has to be decided on merits, since it is a valuable remedy available under the appeal rules to an employee.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the reason stated for returning the appeal is set aside and 1st respondent is directed to condone the delay, take up the appeal on file and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law by following the procedure as contemplated under the rules as expeditiously as possible.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 01-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD To

1. The Registrar General High court of Judicature, Madras-600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge, Ariyalur District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

GD 01-06-2026