Vijayasankar v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR Vijayasankar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, CMDA Tower - II,IV Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation TASMAC Limited, Trichy.

3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation TASMAC Limited, Thanjavur District.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass a final order in Na.Ka. No.8092/A-1/2018 dated 10.01.2024 recommendation made by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all continuation, service benefits and monetary benefits and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For Respondents :

Mr.H.Arumugam Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a salesman in TASMAC on 07.11.2003, thereafter, promoted as Supervisor at shop No.7831 located at No.2, North Street, Main Road, Darasuram, Thanjavur. Subsequently, he was transferred to various shops from time to time. While so, on 26.07.2018, an inspection conducted by higher officials, and found some deficiency in the accounts and deficiency in some of the liquor bottles were found tampered with seals. In the light of the above, a crime was registered vide Cr.No.549 of 2018 and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.07.2018. Since then, the petitioner has not been reinstated in service. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondents to seek re-engagement. Accordingly, the third respondent stated to have submitted a proposal to the first respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8092/A-1/2018 dated 10.01.2024. However, the first

respondent has not taken any action on the said proposal submitted by the third respondent as early as 10.01.2024. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court, alleging inaction on the partConsequently, the petitionHence, the petitioner approach this Court complaining inaction on the part of the first respondent.

5. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instruction, submitted that the proposal submitted by the third respondent on 10.01.2024 would be considered by the first respondent and appropriate decision would be taken within three weeks from today.

6. In the light of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directing the first respondent to take a decision on the recommendation made by the third respondent dated 10.01.2024, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

07.04.2026 Index :

Yes / No am

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

am 07.04.2026