Writ Court Cannot Relegate Marginalized Litigants to Alternative Forums When Seeking Enforcement of Policy Benefits

The appellant, a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) working as a sweeper with the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council, filed a writ petition seeking the benefit of a policy decision under an Office Memorandum dated September 22, 2017.

Specifically, he sought 1/30th of pay plus dearness allowance for the period of September 1, 2017, to December 27, 2022, asserting he performed duties equivalent to a regular employee.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (WPA/652/2024), ruling that the appellant must seek relief through an "appropriate forum" (Labour Court) due to the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly since the prayers touched upon regularisation.

The appellant challenged this relegation in the present appeal.

1. Whether the Writ Court erred in relegating the appellant to an alternative forum on the grounds of maintainability, given the nature of the reliefs sought under a government policy memorandum.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts wide discretionary power to issue prerogative writs for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights.

The existence of an alternative remedy is a rule of self-restraint, not a hard jurisdictional bar, especially when dealing with marginalized sections of society seeking the implementation of a government policy decision (Office Memorandum dated September 22, 2017).

The Court reasoned that the Writ Court possessed "ample power" to address the appellant's grievances under its prerogative jurisdiction.

The Bench highlighted the appellant's socio-economic status as a member of a marginalized section of society working as a sweeper, noting that relegating such a litigant to protracted labor litigation would be inappropriate.

The Court found that the specific prayer for the 1/30th pay benefit—based directly on the Administration’s own Office Memorandum—was a matter that could and should be adjudicated on its merits by the Writ Court rather than being dismissed on technical grounds of alternative remedy.

The Court clarified that the Single Judge's focus on the "regularisation" aspect should not have precluded the determination of the monetary benefits claimed under the existing policy.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated December 19, 2025, directing the Single Judge to independently decide the issues, particularly the claim for 1/30th pay plus dearness allowance.

MAT/73/2026 and all connected applications (CAN/1/2026, CAN/2/2026) were disposed of accordingly.