(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to settle and disburse all retirement benefits due to the petitioner, including, Gratuity as per applicable rules; Commutation of Pension; accumulated Provident Fund with interest; Leave wages & Arrears of Dearness Allowance and Monthly pension with interest.)

Common Order:

1. Two sets of petitioners are before this Court.

                   * The first set consists of widows, daughters and legal heirs of deceased employees of Government departments, Corporations and Cooperative Societies, seeking family pension, revision of retirement benefits and payment of arrears.

                   * The second set consists of retired employees of Government departments, aided schools, Corporations and Co-operative Societies, seeking disbursal or revision of their retirement benefits. In both sets, representations were submitted long back, even dating back to the year 2024. But those representations remained pending without there being any action, leading to the filing of the present writ petitions seeking a mandamus to consider their representations and to provide the retirement benefits / family pension due to them.

2. Any representation has to be considered and disposed of by taking a decision either way, instead of keeping the representation pending. Therefore, this Court directed the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent departments and societies to get instructions as to why the representations of the petitioners have not been considered till date. In response, it was stated that, in some cases, the writ petitions are pending before this Court and, in some other cases, certain documents are required for taking a decision.

3. It is very unfortunate that, for redressal of his grievance, a person is required to approach this Court even for the limited purpose of securing a decision on the representation submitted by him. What is more unfortunate is that, even after such a writ petition is filed, the actual duty of considering and disposing of the representation is not discharged, on the ground that the writ petition itself is pending before this Court. If any further material or document is required for taking such a decision, the same has to be called for and communicated to the person concerned, instead of keeping the representations pending.

4. In fact, this is not the first instance in which this Court has come across such cases. Several instances of representations remaining pending without any decision have been noticed by this Court. However, there is an exception. In a case in WP(MD)No.24935 of 2026, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Office of the Principal Accountant General, Chennai, took a stand that, in the event of any complaint or representation relating to pension benefits or retirement benefits, the same would be considered and orders would be passed by the Office of the Principal Accountant General within a period of two months. It was further stated that, in most cases, a decision would be taken even within a month. This Court has appreciated the stand taken by the Office of the Principal Accountant General in ensuring that such representations are disposed of without keeping them pending indefinitely.

5. When it is possible for the Office of the Principal Accountant General to decide on the representations within a stipulated time frame, this Court fails to understand as to the reasons for the inaction on the part of other Government Departments. In view of the repeated instances of representations being kept pending without any decision being taken, this Court called for the instructions and timelines, if any, issued by the Government for receiving and disposing of representations and grievance petitions made to Government offices. The instructions placed before this Court are as follows:

                   (i) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.66, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-A) Department, dated 23.12.1993, wherein it was directed that an acknowledgement should be provided for petitions received in person by Government offices. A format for such acknowledgement was also prescribed under the said Government Order.

                   (ii) Thereafter, the Government constituted the Higher Level Committee for Administrative Reforms and Prevention of Corruption under the Chairmanship of Justice G.Ramanujam, which submitted its recommendations in the year 1997. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, the Government modified the instructions issued under the above Government Order by issuing G.O.Ms.No.89, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (A) Department, dated 13.05.1999. Under the said Government Order, a time limit of one week was prescribed for providing acknowledgement and three months for giving a final reply to petitions. It was further clarified that, in cases where a No Objection Certificate was required from another department for processing a matter, if no reply was received from that department within a period of thirty days, it would be presumed that the department had no objection to the processing of the matter.

                   (iii) The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, by D.O.No.G 13013/1/2006-PG dated 05.05.2006, suggested modification of the time prescribed for acknowledgement and redressal of grievance petitions. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (A) Department, dated 02.08.2006, directing that acknowledgement should be provided within three days of receipt of a grievance petition and that the petition should be disposed of within a period of two months. Where a petition could not be disposed of within two months, an interim reply was directed to be sent to the concerned citizen. Since grievance petitions were also being received through e-mail, the above guidelines were subsequently extended to such petitions by G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (A) Department, dated 12.09.2013.

                   (iv) Subsequently, this Court, in S.P.Moorthy v. District Collector, Kancheepuram [W.P.No.20527 of 2014 dated 01.08.2014], issued directions to all Government Departments to redress grievance petitions within a period of thirty days by passing a speaking order. Pursuant to the said directions, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (A) Department, dated 21.09.2015, modifying the earlier instructions and directing that grievance petitions should be disposed of within a maximum period of thirty days by a speaking order.

                   (v) The Government thereafter issued letters dated 16.03.2018 and 03.02.2021, recording that the instructions contained in the above Government Orders were not being followed by the Government departments and reiterating that grievance petitions should be disposed of scrupulously within the prescribed time.

                   (vi) Despite the above Government Orders and repeated reminders, grievance petitions continued to remain pending beyond the prescribed time. A Division Bench of this Court took note of the issue in W.P.No.32798 of 2024 dated 14.11.2024 and observed as follows:

                   “3.We also fail to understand why the representations are not being considered and author of the representation being kept informed on the development.

                   4.In W.P.No.20527 of 2014 that was disposed of on 1.8.2014, the following directions were issued in paragraphs 3 to 6:

                   “3.We pointed out to the learned Government Pleader that there are numerous petitions coming forth before this Court arising from allegations of unauthorised construction, misuses of water ways, effect, the grievance is of about municipal functioning, thus, necessary, that the grievances are attended to and redressed In It is, provided where the grievances are found to be genuine, within a time bound schedule.

                   4.We, thus, direct the State Government to take necessary steps to issue a Government Order directing all concerned authorities to attend to such representations within a maximum period of thirty (30) days from the receipt of representation, with a speaking order. In case, for some reason, additional time is required, the person, who has made the representation, would be informed in writing for the extended period of time.

                   5.The Office Order in this behalf may be issued within seven days from today and shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned.

                   6.We are constrained to pass this order in view of the deluge of such petitions before this Court, which take valuable judicial time and it can easily be redressed and ought to be redressed by municipal authorities.”

                   5. ... Notwithstanding the same, we find that numerous petitions are coming forth before this court arising from allegations of unauthorised construction, misuse of waterways, etc. It appears the grievances are not being attended to or redressed. We find that the conduct of the Collectors and Tahsildars is in gross breach of the order passed by this court and the two government orders mentioned earlier.”

                   (vii) Pursuant to the above concern expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Chief Secretary to the Government issued a letter dated 26.11.2024 reiterating that all Government departments should dispose of grievance petitions within the prescribed timeline.

                   (viii) The procedure for receipt, transmission and disposal of grievance petitions is also provided under Chapter XXII of the Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual (formerly District Office Manual). Paragraph 167 of the Manual deals with the disposal of grievance petitions. In order to incorporate the above instructions into the Manual, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (A) Department, dated 11.06.2018, wherein the following instructions have been provided under Paragraph 167(ii) of the Manual:

                   “(i)An acknowledgement should go immediately and at the most within three days of the receipt of grievance petitions.

                   (ii)Grievance itself should be redressed within a maximum period of one month of its receipt and it should be with a speaking order in the event of a redressal or rejection if found necessary.

                   (iii)The citizens approaching the Government departments with their grievances should be informed of their of the progress of his/her grievance.

                   (iv)In case, for some reason, additional time is required for its finalization, the person, who has given grievance petition, should be informed in writing of the extended period of time for its finalization.

                   (v)In case, it is found not feasible to accede to his/her request, a reasoned reply may be issued to the aggrieved citizen within the stipulated time limit of one month.”

                   (ix) Further, Paragraph 167(21)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual provides for a separate Complaint Cell in each District Office and prescribes the matters which may be taken up by such Complaint Cells, including cases relating to non-payment or delay in payment of salaries and allowances, fixation of pay and delay in finalisation of pension and gratuity.

                   (x) The Manual further provides that the progress made in the disposal of complaints should be reviewed by the Heads of Offices, who shall submit reports to the concerned Heads of Departments, and that the Heads of Departments are required to submit reports regarding disposal of complaints to the Chief Secretary at appropriate intervals.

6. Thus, there are clear and repeated instructions, in the form of Government Orders, Government letters and the Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual, prescribing a time-bound procedure for the receipt, consideration and disposal of grievance petitions. The issue of noncompliance with these instructions has also been noticed by this Court on more than one occasion, followed by further directions and reminders to the authorities to adhere to the prescribed timelines. Despite the same, representations continue to remain pending, compelling persons who have approached the authorities for redressal of their grievances to approach this Court seeking a direction merely to consider and dispose of their representations.

7. The issue of such routine mandamus petitions consuming the valuable time of the Constitutional Courts has also been noticed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court, in G.Soundarrajan v. The District Registrar [WP(MD)No.617 of 2021 dated 19.01.2021], observed that there is a “Mandamus Mania” which is reducing the efficiency of this Court. The relevant portion is extracted as under:

                   “6. ... This Court unfortunately has been witnessing in the recent past that plethora of ‘Mandamus’ Writ Petitions being filed at the drop of a hat for all kinds of relief as a matter of course taking away the precious time of this Court from focusing on a quality litigation in true exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The Writ Courts have been deluged with ‘Mandamus’ petitions converting the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court into a ‘Direction Factory’ or ‘Machine’ producing clichéd, stereotype order/hackneyed directions which hardly require any application of mind.

                   7.It has lately become a routine exercise of the Writ Court to pander to the 'Mandamus Mania' to keep the bar in good humour. Ultimately, at the end of the day, a Writ Court hardly finds sufficient time to engage itself in settlement of serious lis of the parties due to its predominant occupation on a trivia most of the time. In fact, the experience of the Writ Court is that directions to various authorities to take decisions in regard to the grievances projected by the litigants, have invariably get rebirth and the lis is back on the lap of this Court for adjudication once again.

                   ... ... ...

                   9.Further, in the process of summary disposal of the Writ Petition, by skimming the surface of the litigations the Courts have many a time forced to relegate its intellect and scholarship to the back-burner on expediencies. The constitutional courts have been woefully reduced to a below par performer allowing mediocrity to creep into the system of Writ governance. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the constitutional court, has over a period of time degenerated into mundane and insipid exercise of power. ...”

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Government of India and Another v. P.Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC 613], has also observed as under:

                   “8.This “dispose of the representation” mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cased in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice ...”

9. In these petitions also, the petitioners, who are retired Government employees or their family members, have been left waiting indefinitely for decisions on their representations, despite the existence of clear procedures and time limits for their disposal. This Court is, therefore, called upon to issue directions to the concerned authorities to perform what is essentially an administrative duty, namely, to consider and dispose of the representations within the prescribed time. The valuable time of this Constitutional Court is thus being spent on directing the concerned authorities to perform a duty which they were already required to discharge in accordance with the existing instructions.

10. Article 350 of the Constitution of India provides that every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redressal of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State. Therefore, the right to submit a representation to the authorities for the redressal of grievances is a constitutional right. The instructions issued by the Government, in the form of Government Orders, circulars and the Office Manual, prescribing time limits for disposal of such representations, are intended to ensure that this right is meaningfully exercised and that grievances brought before the authorities are dealt with within a reasonable time.

11. These instructions also constitute an essential aspect of the duties of the Government servants entrusted with the receipt and disposal of such representations. Failure to discharge such obligation within the prescribed time would amount to dereliction of duty and may, depending upon the circumstances, constitute misconduct. “Misconduct” has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as transgression of some established and definite rule of action or dereliction from duty. “Misconduct in office” has been defined as any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office and includes the failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon defines “dereliction in the performance of duty” as wilful or negligent failure to perform assigned duties. There is an affirmative duty placed upon the Government officers to consider and dispose of the representations received from the public within the prescribed time. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayalechumi Gopalapillai v. The Principal Secretary to the Government [W.P.No.12154 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024] has observed that statutory authorities are under a duty to consider and dispose of representations without keeping the same indefinitely pending and that non-consideration of the representations would amount to dereliction of duty.

12. In this context, it is also relevant to note that Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules provides that every member of the service shall maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. It also provides that no Government servant shall evade the responsibility devolving legitimately on him during the performance of his duties or in the exercise of his powers. Further, the explanation to this Rule provides that a Government servant who habitually fails to perform a task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected from him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of the Rule. Thus, the obligation to dispose of representations within the prescribed time is not merely an administrative instruction, but also forms part of the responsibility of the Government servant entrusted with such duty.

13. We are living in a democratic country, in which the legitimacy of the State rests, among other things, upon the ability and willingness of the Government to respond to the needs and grievances of its citizens. The executive authorities, being the interface between the Government and the people, have a duty to ensure that the grievances brought before them are considered and dealt with within a reasonable time. When representations remain unattended despite the existence of specific instructions prescribing the time within which they are required to be disposed of, the aggrieved persons are compelled to approach this Court for obtaining a direction to the concerned authority to consider their representations. Such persistent inaction, despite repeated Government instructions and judicial intervention, cannot be permitted to become an accepted feature of public administration.

14. The consequence of such avoidable litigation is not confined to the consumption of valuable judicial time. It also results in avoidable expenditure both to the litigant and to the State. A person who is compelled to approach this Court merely for securing a direction to consider and dispose of a representation has to incur expenditure towards legal representation and other court-related and incidental expenses. On the other hand, the State is required to incur expenditure towards the appearance of Government counsel, preparation and vetting of counters, obtaining instructions from the concerned department and the attendance of Government servants for providing such instructions, including travelling and daily allowance, wherever applicable. Thus, public funds and private resources are expended not for adjudication of the underlying claim, but merely because the representation was not dealt with within the prescribed time. A timely and reasoned decision on the representation would enable the applicant to pursue an appropriate remedy, if necessary, and would also prevent avoidable litigation, expenditure of public funds and consumption of valuable judicial time.

15. The Government of the day, which has expressed its commitment to transparency and accountability in administration, must therefore ensure that the existing mechanism for receipt, processing and disposal of representations functions effectively. Where a representation is deficient in any material particular or requires additional documents, the person concerned must be informed of the same within a reasonable time instead of being left to wait indefinitely for a decision.

16. In view of the above, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Secretary to Government, Human Resource and Management Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, are suo-motu impleaded as parties to the first writ petition in this batch in WP(MD)No.1340 of 2025. The newly impleaded respondents shall issue appropriate instructions to all the departments to scrupulously adhere to the prescribed timelines for receipt, consideration and disposal of representations submitted by retired Government servants, their family members and members of the general public. It shall also be ensured that the existing mechanism for monitoring the disposal of such representations is effectively implemented and that failure, without sufficient cause, to dispose of a representation within the prescribed time is viewed seriously and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken against the officers responsible, who fail to consider and dispose grievance petitions in time, in accordance with the applicable service rules.

17. Insofar as the present writ petitions are concerned, the respective respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.