Madras High CourtEmployment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Madurai HC Directs Milk Union To Consider Technician’s Executive Engineer Promotion Plea Positively Within Four Weeks

R.MAYANDI,v.THE COMMISSIONER,

Madurai HC Directs Milk Union To Consider Technician’s Executive Engineer Promotion Plea Positively Within Four Weeks. R.MAYANDI, vs THE COMMISSIONER,. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation seeking promotion to Executive Engineer

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 22 October 2026 within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

It did not itself grant promotion or monetary benefits.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed

01Facts

The petitioner, an employee of the Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, sought promotion to Executive Engineer after applying in response to a vacancy notification.

p. 4

He alleged that 22 employees were promoted but he was excluded

p. 4

In W.P.(MD) No. 8215 of 2019, he challenged the order dated 4 June 2018 and sought promotion from 5 December 2016; in W.P.(MD) No. 933 of 2021, he sought a direction to promote him under the society’s bylaws.

pp. 2–3

At the hearing, the respondents’ counsel submitted that the petitioner had made a representation dated 22 October 2026 seeking promotion from 1 January 2023 with attendant monetary benefits, and that the second respondent was willing to consider it positively.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the second respondent should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation seeking promotion to Executive Engineer

p. 5

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled in these proceedings to an order granting promotion or consequential monetary benefits

pp. 2–3, 5

03Law Applied

The judgment cites no statute, bylaw, precedent, or substantive legal test governing promotion.

p. 5

The Court disposed of the petitions by recording the respondents’ counsel’s undertaking that the petitioner’s representation would be considered positively and directing the second respondent to decide it within a specified period

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion, whether his exclusion was unlawful, or whether he was entitled to monetary benefits.

p. 5

Instead, it relied on the respondents’ stated willingness to consider the representation positively and confined its order to requiring a decision within four weeks of receipt of the order

p. 5

05Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 22 October 2026 within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

p. 5

It did not itself grant promotion or monetary benefits.

p. 5

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed

p. 5
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

R.MAYANDI,vsTHE COMMISSIONER,

Madras High Court · October 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment