Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

A.Ramayee Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
A.Ramayee Vs The State of TamilnaduA.Ramayee v. The State of Tamilnadu

Dismissed¶29

A.Ramayee v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Nov 2025WP(MD)/27330/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for default; non-representation of petitioner; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; pension and other retirement benefits; provident fund; pending increments; representations dated 25.09.2019 and 09.12.2019; order letter No.Aa4/2136/2016 dated 28.11.2019; Deputy Director of Horticulture Pudukkottai; TANHODA; Department of Horticulture Tamil Nadu; similar writ W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024 dismissed; merits not considered; no costs; C. Kumarappan J.; Madurai Bench; decided 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to examine the merits of the writ petition, notwithstanding the respondents' reference to the dismissal of a similar writ petition (W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024), because the petitioner, though the matter was repeatedly listed, did not come up for argument and there was no representation on her behalf.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to sanction and disbursement of pension and other retirement benefits, along with provident fund and pending increments, pursuant to her representations dated 25.09.2019 and 09.12.2019 (raised by the prayer; not framed or decided by the Court).

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to examine the merits of the writ petition, notwithstanding the respondents' reference to the dismissal of a similar writ petition (W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024), because the petitioner, though the matter was repeatedly listed, did not come up for argument and there was no representation on her behalf.

Key takeaways

Since there was no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for default, with no costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), C. Kumarappan J.: WP(MD)No.27330 of 2019, filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order in letter No.Aa4/2136/2016 dated 28.11.2019 of the 3rd respondent (Deputy Director of Horticulture, Pudukkottai) and to direct sanction and disbursement of pension and other retirement benefits along with provident fund and pending increments, considering representations dated 25.09.2019 and 09.12.2019. When listed on 14.11.2025 there was no representation for the petitioner. Although the Additional Government Pleader referred to the dismissal of a similar prayer by similarly placed persons in W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024, the Court declined to go into the merits for want of representation and dismissed the writ petition for default on 14.11.2025, with no costs. No substantive issue relating to pension entitlement was decided.

A

W.P(md)No.27330 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated:14.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

WP(MD)No.27330 of 2019

R.Ramayee

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Department of Agricultural, St George Fort, Chennai.

2.The Director (TANHODA) Department of Horticlulture, Chennai-5.

3.The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order in letter No.Aa4/2136/2016 dated 28.11.2019 of the 3^rd respondent and direct

the respondents to sanction and disburse the pension and other retirement benefits along with provident fund, pending increments by considering the

1/4

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

W.P(md)No.27330 of 2019

petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2019 and 09.12.2019.

For Petitioner : No appearance

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

When the matter was listed on 12.11.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought a short accommodation. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 14.11.2025. Today when the matter is again listed, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

2.Apart from that, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would invite the attention of this Court about the order made in W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024, in and by which, the similar prayer sought for by the similarly placed persons was dismissed. But this Court does not want to go into the merits of the matter, as the petitioner in spite of listing the matter, has not come up for argument and there is no representation on their behalf. Therefore, there is no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending.

2/4

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

W.P(md)No.27330 of 2019

3.In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed for default.

No costs.

14.11.2025

Index : Yes/No

Neutral Citation : Yes/No

Ns

To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Department of Agricultural, St George Fort, Chennai.

2.The Director (TANHODA) Department of Horticlulture, Chennai-5.

3.The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

3/4

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

W.P(md)No.27330 of 2019

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Ns

WP(MD)No.27330 of 2019

14.11.2025

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to sanction and disbursement of pension and other retirement benefits, along with provident fund and pending increments, pursuant to her representations dated 25.09.2019 and 09.12.2019 (raised by the prayer; not framed or decided by the Court).medium confidence¶15

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024Referred¶25

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶14

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order in letter No.Aa4/2136/2016 dated 28.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent (Deputy Director of Horticulture, Pudukkottai), sought to be quashed by writ of certiorarified mandamus along with a direction to sanction and disburse pension and other retirement benefits.¶14
3rd respondent - Deputy Director of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Pudukkottai · 28.11.2019
Prior proceeding
On listing on 12.11.2025, the petitioner's counsel sought a short accommodation and the matter was directed to be listed on 14.11.2025; when again listed on 14.11.2025 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.¶24
Prior proceeding
The learned Additional Government Pleader drew attention to the dismissal of a similar prayer by similarly placed persons in W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024; the Court declined to go into the merits since the petitioner, though repeatedly listed, did not appear for argument.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
R.Ramayee¶7
respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Department of Agricultural, St George Fort, Chennai¶10
M.Sarangan
respondent
The Director (TANHODA) Department of Horticlulture, Chennai-5¶11
M.Sarangan
respondent
The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District¶12
M.Sarangan

Coram

AI extract

C.Kumarappanauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 14 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 20 Dec 2019
Case no.: WP(MD)/27330/2019
CNR: HCMD011216342019
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: C.kumarappan
Disposal: DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION
Case type: WP(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.kumarappan

Chinnappan Gnanajeyaseelan, Vs the Personal Assistant
13 Nov 2025
G.J.Chriystopher Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Police(Ap)
12 Nov 2025
P.Muralidharan, Vs the Director General of Police
12 Nov 2025
V. Muralikannan Vs Spl.Officer/Block Development Officer
14 Nov 2025
Jeyaraman Vs the Additional Director General of Police/
14 Nov 2025
S.P.Karuppaiah Vs The State of Tamilnadu
14 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

A.Ramayee v. The State of Tamilnadu, WP(MD)/27330/2019 (MAD), decided on 14 November 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024Referred¶25

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order in letter No.Aa4/2136/2016 dated 28.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent (Deputy Director of Horticulture, Pudukkottai), sought to be quashed by writ of certiorarified mandamus along with a direction to sanction and disburse pension and other retirement benefits.3rd respondent - Deputy Director of Horticulture, Department of Horticulture, Pudukkottai · 28.11.2019
On listing on 12.11.2025, the petitioner's counsel sought a short accommodation and the matter was directed to be listed on 14.11.2025; when again listed on 14.11.2025 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
The learned Additional Government Pleader drew attention to the dismissal of a similar prayer by similarly placed persons in W.P.No.1862 of 2022 dated 03.01.2024; the Court declined to go into the merits since the petitioner, though repeatedly listed, did not appear for argument.

View full history

Bench / Coram

C.Kumarappan

Parties & counsel