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.

N.Ramasamy Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
N.Ramasamy Vs The Principal Secretary to GovernmentN.Ramasamy v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Dismissed¶31

N.Ramasamy v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Jun 2026WP/13876/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 13876 of 2019; writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; repeated absence of petitioners and counsel on 03.12.2025, 09.03.2026, 27.04.2026, 10.06.2026 and on hearing date; mandamus sought for pensionary benefits from revised pay scale (Selection Grade and Special Grade) effective 01.01.1996; respondents: Finance Department and Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Tamil Nadu; Govt. Standing Counsel Ms. Y. Kavitha for respondents; no appearance for petitioners; Judge T. Vinod Kumar; dated 08-06-2026; no costs.

What did the court decide?

As the petitioners made no appearance in person or through counsel on multiple hearing dates and again on the date of hearing, it appeared they were not interested in prosecuting the case, leaving the Court no option but to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pensionary benefits arising out of revision of their pay scale in Selection Grade and Special Grade with effect from 01.01.1996 (raised by prayer; not adjudicated as the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution).

Ratio / Principle

As the petitioners made no appearance in person or through counsel on multiple hearing dates and again on the date of hearing, it appeared they were not interested in prosecuting the case, leaving the Court no option but to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madras High Court, WP No. 13876 of 2019, T. Vinod Kumar, J., decided 08-06-2026) filed by seven petitioners praying for a mandamus to direct the respondents (Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department; Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance (Pay Cell) Department; and Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department) to grant pensionary benefits arising out of revision of the petitioners' pay scale in Selection Grade and Special Grade with effect from 01.01.1996. Dismissed for non-prosecution: there was no representation for the petitioners on 03.12.2025, 09.03.2026, 27.04.2026 and 10.06.2026, the matter had been listed under the caption 'for dismissal', and again on the hearing date there was no appearance; the Court held the petitioners appeared not interested in prosecuting the case. No costs.

A

WP No. 13876 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

WP No. 13876 of 2019

N.Ramasamy

T.Manickam

P.Govindasamy

C.H. Sivaji Rao

E.Rajendiran

N.Natarajan

A.Nowsath

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

..Respondent(s)

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 13876 of 2019

PRAYER:This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant pensionary benefits that would arise out of revising the pay scale of the petitioners in Selection Grade and Special grade with effect from 01.01.1996.

For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): Ms.Y. Kavitha, Govt.Standing Counsel

ORDER

It is seen from the records that on earlier occasions i.e., on 03.12.2025, 09.03.2026, 27.04.2026 & 10.06.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners either in person or through their counsel. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ''for dismissal''. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, today also there is no representation for the petitioners.

2.It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence, this Court has no other option except to dismiss this petition for nonprosecution.

__________ Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 13876 of 2019

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No

costs.

08-06-2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

DN

To

The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

3.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 13876 of 2019

T.VINOD KUMAR J.

DN

WP No. 13876 of 2019

08-06-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pensionary benefits arising out of revision of their pay scale in Selection Grade and Special Grade with effect from 01.01.1996 (raised by prayer; not adjudicated as the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution).¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
On 03.12.2025, 09.03.2026, 27.04.2026 and 10.06.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners either in person or through their counsel.¶26
Prior proceeding
Owing to the repeated non-representation, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal'.¶26
Prior proceeding
On the day of hearing (08.06.2026) again there was no representation for the petitioners.¶26

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
N.Ramasamy¶7
petitioner
T.Manickam¶8
petitioner
P.Govindasamy¶9
petitioner
C.H. Sivaji Rao¶10
petitioner
E.Rajendiran¶11
petitioner
N.Natarajan¶12
petitioner
A.Nowsath¶13
respondent
The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.¶16
Ms.Y. Kavitha
respondent
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.¶17
Ms.Y. Kavitha
respondent
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.¶18
Ms.Y. Kavitha

Coram

AI extract

T. Vinod Kumarauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 8 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 2 May 2019
Case no.: WP/13876/2019
CNR: HCMA013956282018
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
Disposal: DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION
Case type: WP

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from T. Vinod Kumar

Mr. P.Ganesh, Vs Shri, R.Doraiswamy and 3 others
5 Jun 2026
Smruti Ranjan Pradhan, Vs Mr. Sajjan Singh R.Chavan, Ias., and another
5 Jun 2026
S.Gopi, Vs Dr.K.Gopal, I.a.S., and another
5 Jun 2026
V.Raju Vs The Principal Secretary to Government
8 Jun 2026
N.Mugunthan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government
8 Jun 2026
G.Kaliaperumal Vs The State rep by the
8 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

N.Ramasamy v. The Principal Secretary to Government, WP/13876/2019 (MAD), decided on 8 June 2026.

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

Procedural history3

On 03.12.2025, 09.03.2026, 27.04.2026 and 10.06.2026, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners either in person or through their counsel.
Owing to the repeated non-representation, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal'.

View full history

Bench / Coram

T. Vinod Kumar

Parties & counsel