R.P.Arul Vs State Level Scruitny Committee III

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus forbearing respondent no.1 Committee from further inquiring into the community status of the petitioner and directing respondent no.2 to pay the petitioner all his retirement benefits within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.26770 of 2025

¶21

For Respondents

¶22

: Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader for Respondent-1

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

Heard.

¶26

Petitions are being filed by petitioner one after another to assail the correctness of the action of second respondent in initiating inquiry and various orders passed by this Court from time to time, last order being dated 04.11.2022. Petitioner has again, now, approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing first respondent from further inquiring into his community status and has also prayed for direction to second respondent to pay him all his retirement benefits within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶27

The only ground urged in the petition is that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. S.Renuka

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.26770 of 2025

¶31

[SLP(C) No.24458/2019 dated 03.03.2023], after retirement of petitioner, enquiry could not be continued.

¶32

The submission made by learned counsel for petitioner is required to be rejected. Firstly, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition and the same was allowed by this Court dated 04.11.2022. Having set aside the order, this Court, thereafter, proceeded to pass the following order:

¶33

“9.There will be a direction to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to have the exercises of redone by the District Level Vigilance Cell and the Anthropologist who shall visit the native place of the petitioner's mother viz., Karvetti Nagaram, Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh and submit a fresh Report. The State Level Scrutiny Committee will decide on the community status of the petitioner on the basis of such report to be filed by the District Level Vigilance Cell and the Anthropologist. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶34

It appears that second respondent has now, again,

¶35

proceeded to hold inquiry against petitioner.

¶36

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.26770 of 2025

¶39

In the meantime, it appears that petitioner attained the age

¶40

of superannuation and retired on 31.05.2025. Now, petition is directed against the continuance of inquiry on the ground that this issue stands covered by order of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.Renuka supra.

¶41

Aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of petitioner,

¶42

because, in his case, enquiry is being held in compliance of order dated 04.11.2022 passed earlier. It operates both in favour of as well as against petitioner.

¶43

In that view of the matter, petition has no merit and is,

¶44

therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

¶46

22.09.2025

¶47

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kpl

¶48

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.26770 of 2025

¶51

To

¶52

The Chairman and Additional Secretary to Government State Level Scrutiny Committee III Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-6) Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶53