The Director v. P. Dheenadhayalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Writ Appeal No.3764 of 2025 and CMP No.31083 of 2025 1.
The Director, Directorate of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.
The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.
The District Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Officer, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
.. Appellants -vsP.Dheenadhayalan .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.18030 of 2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants :
Mr.E.Vijay Anand Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent :
Mr.M.Loganathan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The appeal is directed against an order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the claim made by the respondent/writ petitioner has been accepted and direction issued for disbursal of an amount of Rs.19,76,068/-.
2. Short submission of learned State counsel is that the Director does not, as such, deny the claim, but only required verification of the claims, in the light of the recommendation made by the Collector.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that once the District Welfare Officer makes verification, which is the basis for recommendation made by the Collector, nothing remains to be done and non-payment is not merely a contractual dispute, but is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the claim made by the petitioner is not an amount admitted by the competent authority. Admittedly, the competent authority for sanctioning the payment is the Director. It appears that on certain verification made by the District Welfare Officer, recommendation was made by the Collector, however, the fact remains that the Director is the sanctioning authority. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Director seeks verification of the claim of the petitioner, after examining various records placed before him. Therefore, in such a case, it cannot be said that non-payment is arbitrary.
5. In that view of the matter, the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. However, a writ is issued to the Director to examine the claim of the petitioner after examination of the materials before him, which includes verification report of the District Welfare Officer and the Collector and take a decision thereon, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since, under protest, payments have already been made to the writ petitioner, any adjustment will depend upon the order that may be
passed by the Director. We also make it clear that the writ petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Director, before taking a final decision in the matter.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 04.02.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra
To 1.
The Director, Directorate of Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.
The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.
The District Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Officer, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sra) 04.02.2026