State appealed against writ court orders directing continuation of Cook appointees who had crossed the upper age limit. Following its earlier Division Bench order in a similar case, the Court dismissed the appeals and directed compliance with the writ court orders within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-12-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025 and CMP Nos. 29047, 29070 & 29062 of 2025
In WA No. 3528 of 2025:
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Tmt. Senthamarai W/o. Subramani, No.2/136, Pelrampatty Colony, Thirumalvadi, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri Dt.
..Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 7
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
In WA No. 3530 of 2025:
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Tmt. Munirathinam W/o. Sivalinagam, No.1/24, Adi-Dravidar Street, Palacode & Post, Dharmapuri District.
..Respondent(s)
In WA No. 3533 of 2025:
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Tmt. A Selvi W/o.Ramasundaram, Pothakadu Village, Paiyamatham, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
Page 2 of 7
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
..Respondent(s)
Common Prayer : Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, prayed to set aside the Orders dated 02.04.2025 made in W.P.Nos.29910, 29905 and 29913 of 2024 and allow these Writ Appeals .
Appearance in all cases:
For Appellant(s): Mr. P. Muthukumar, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. S. John J. Raja Singh, Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Kamadevan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Suresh Kumar J.)
Since the issue raised in these intra-Court appeals is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, all these appeals were heard together and a common order is being passed.
Page 3 of 7
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
learned Writ Court in W.P.No.29916 of 2024 dated 02.04.2025, had come up
before a Division Bench of this Court where on of us (R.Suresh Kumar, J.) was a party, in W.A.No.3341 of 2025.
“7. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
8. The fact remains that the Division Bench Judgment dated 18.02.2025 has become final as they have implemented the said order. When that being so, nothing wrong in implementing the present order also.
9. It is also contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants that, since the order of the Division Bench dated 18.02.2025 is confined to Ariyalur District of the State of Tamil Nadu, only in respect of that District, that order of the Division Bench dated 18.02.2025 has been implemented.
10. Once the issue has been concluded by the orders of this Court which has been accepted by the State by the very same Department and implemented, it cannot be confined only to one Revenue District and therefore, that defence taken by the learned Additional Advocate General is not impressing us.
11.Moreover, here is not the case of the appellant employer that there is no eligibility for the respondent/writ petitioner to hold the post of Cook. The only objection was
Page 4 of 7
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
that, the upper age limit of 35 years has already been crossed by him.
12. In many such appointments, that kind of upper age limit if it is crossed by the employees, wherever it is necessary, age relaxation is granted as that kind of provisions are available in the relevant Service Rules. Therefore, here in this case also, such relaxation can very well be given to the respondent / writ petitioner with regard to upper age limit.
13.Moreover, the post where the respondent / writ petitioner was appointed is only as Cook in the Hostel and there could be no other promotional avenue for the post of Cook, therefore, nothing wrong in giving such age relaxation of upper age limit. Therefore, the hard stand taken by the appellant employer opposing such grant of relaxation despite the order having been passed by the Court is not impressing us. Moreover, since the learned Judge has followed the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.02.2025 which has admittedly been implemented by the appellant Department which is the very same Department, no exception can be taken in implementing the present order which is impugned herein.
14. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the approach of the learned Judge in allowing the said writ petition through the impugned order, as a result of which, this Writ Appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
age limit prescribed in this regard. Therefore, the said order passed by the
Page 5 of 7
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
Division Bench of this Court cited supra, in The Secretary to Government, AdiDravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George., Chennai – 9 and 2 Ors., v. C. Sakthivel in W.P.No.3341 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025, will squarely apply to the present cases also.
(R.S.K.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 01-12-2025
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
klt
Page 6 of 7
WA Nos.3528, 3530 & 3533 of 2025
R.SURESH KUMAR J.
AND
SHAMIM AHMED J.
klt
WA Nos.3528, 3530 and 3533 of 2025 AND CMP Nos. 29047, 29070 and 29062 of 2025
01-12-2025
__________ Page 7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ petitioners appointed as Cook after crossing the upper age limit of 35 years were entitled to age relaxation and continuation in service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 and 2 Ors. v. C. SakthivelFollowed¶5
W.A.No.3341 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025
The Secretary to Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9
The Director Of Adi Dravidar Welfare Chepauk, Chennai 5
The District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri
Tmt. Senthamarai W/o. Subramani
Tmt. Munirathinam W/o. Sivalinagam
Tmt. A Selvi W/o.Ramasundaram
R. Suresh Kumar
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
