M. Govindarajan, v. The Joint Commissioner,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and CMP(MD)No.5094 of 2026 M.Govindarajan ... Appellant Vs.

1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Mayiladudurai.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kumbakonam,

3. The Fit Person/Thakkar, Arulmighu Prasanna Vengadachalapathi Swamy Temple, Veppathur, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Also holding the Post of Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thenupurishwarar Thirukovil, Patteswaram, Kumbakonam Taluk, ... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.1476 of 2026 dated 04.03.2026. For Appellant : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 & R2 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.Chandrasekar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P(MD)No.1476 of 2026 dated 04.03.2026.

2. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Archagar in the 3rd respondent temple by the erstwhile trustee namely, VNR.Subramanian and there was a dispute between him and the said VNR.Subramanian which was the subject matter of the civil suit between them. So, with motive the 3rd respondent / Thakkar passed a resolution to take action against the appellant and by order dated 08.01.2026 relieved the appellant from his duties as Archagar. According to the appellant, only on the allegation of misconduct, he has been relieved from service without any enquiry by the order dated 08.01.2026 impugned in the writ 2/6

petition, as such, the said relieving order itself is an indirect punishment. Therefore, if the said order is sustained, it will cause stigma to the appellant. However, when the said order was challenged, the Writ Court sustained the order holding that since the appellant has crossed the age of superannuation, he is not eligible to continue in service, ignoring that the order relieving order itself is an indirect punishment. Hence, this writ appeal.

3. The appellant was not appointed by the Government or the fit person, whereas he was appointed as Archagar by the erstwhile trustee. The appellant has crossed the age of 60 years and therefore, as a matter of right, he cannot continue as Archaga due to overage. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2026 relieving of the appellant from duties due to overage, is sustained. However, the said order dated 08.01.2026 proceeds as if a resolution has been passed to take action against the appellant on the misconducts. Though the order impugned in the writ petition stated so, neither charge was framed against the appellant nor enquiry into misconducts was conducted and therefore, the relieving order cannot be said to be passed on the ground of misconducts. Hence, 3/6

it is hereby clarified that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 08.01.2026 is sustained only on the ground of overage and it has not been passed on the ground of any misconduct against the appellant. Accordingly, we clarify that the no stigma shall be attached to the order dated 08.01.2026 impugned in the writ petition.

4. With this Clarification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 20.04.2026 Index : Yes / No : Ye / No bala To

1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Mayiladudurai.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kumbakonam, 4/6

3. The Fit Person/Thakkar, Arulmighu Prasanna Vengadachalapathi Swamy Temple, Veppathur, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Also holding the Post of Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thenupurishwarar Thirukovil, Patteswaram, Kumbakonam Taluk, 5/6

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

bala 20.04.2026 6/6