Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 08-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Former VIT University employee (represented by Mr. Navaneeth Raghavachari) filed six writ petitions (WP Nos. 1129, 1130, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144 of 2015) under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus or certiorari for payment of subsistence allowance under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.
  • Respondent: The Registrar, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT University), Vellore.
  • Background: Petitioner was appointed Purchase Officer on 01‑08‑1996, later served as Event Coordinator, and was suspended on 12‑06‑2013 pending an enquiry. He claimed the charges were frivolous and that the university violated Rule 5.2 of its Human Resources Manual.
  • The petitioner argued that under the 1981 Act, a suspended employee is entitled to subsistence allowance: 50% of last drawn wages for the first 90 days, 75% for 90‑180 days, and full wages thereafter. He asserted that the university owed full wages from January 2014 onward.
  • He sought the allowance in September 2014, submitted an affidavit of non‑employment, but the university issued a show‑cause notice alleging employment with M/s. Onyx Trading, which the petitioner denied.
  • Earlier, the Court had set aside a departmental enquiry (W.P. No. 6196 of 2014) on 30‑12‑2014, yet the university neither paid the allowance nor reinstated him.
  • The university did not appear or file a counter‑affidavit.
  • The Court examined whether VIT University qualifies as an “authority” under Article 226 and whether the 1981 Act applies. It noted that the Act defines “employee” and “establishment” and that the term “establishment” requires the executive power of the State to extend to the activity.
  • The Court found that VIT University, though situated in Tamil Nadu, receives no state financial aid, is not affiliated with state universities, and therefore the State’s executive power does not extend to its activities. Consequently, it is not an “establishment” under the Act.
  • The Court cited Supreme Court precedents (St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2023; Army Welfare Educational Society v. Sunilkumar Sharma, 2024) establishing that private educational institutions are not “State” entities for Article 226 purposes unless statutory service conditions apply.
  • The Court also referenced its own order dated 02‑09‑2026 in W.A. No. 2887 of 2023, which held a private school not to be a “State”.

Final Outcome

  • The Court concluded that the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 does not apply to VIT University, and the university is not a “State” or “establishment” within the meaning of Article 12.
  • Accordingly, the writ petitions seeking mandamus or certiorari for payment of subsistence allowance are non‑maintainable and are dismissed.
  • The Court directed that the petitioner may approach the appropriate civil forum for relief under the employment contract.
  • No costs were awarded; all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: Legal Jurisdiction, Employment Law