T.Vijayakumari Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 2.The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

¶11

3.The District Welfare officer Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Perambalur, perambalur Distrct 621 212 4.The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Perambalur District 621 212

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

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

¶14

WP No. 764 of 2026

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.11.2025 to regularize the service of the petitioner form the date of her initial appointment on 01.11.2007, along with monetary benefits and all consequential benefits with arrears.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Esai Rani Narasimman

¶18

For Respondents: Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.11.2025, seeking to regularize

¶21

the service of the petitioner form the date of her initial appointment on 01.11.2007, along with all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits with arrears.

¶22

Mr.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader takes

¶23

notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 764 of 2026

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Cook on 01.11.2007 in a Government Students’ Hostel and her service was regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.25, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (Adw4) Department, dated 25.02.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has made a representation dated 11.11.2025 before the respondents, seeking regularization of her service from the date of her initial appointment i.e 01.11.2007. However, the same has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

¶27

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it would

¶28

suffice, if this Court issues a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the same within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶29

On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶30

In view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 764 of 2026

¶33

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties.

¶34