Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1976 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2022
W.A.(MD) No.37 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.(MD) No.37 of 2022
R.Vijayakumar ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Pudukkottai Electricity Distribution Circle,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Pudukkottai – 622 001. ... Respondents/Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/4
W.A.(MD) No.37 of 2022
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
dated 10.08.2021, made in W.P.(MD) No.12271 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan
Standing Counsel for TNEB
JUDGEMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY,J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 10.08.2021 recorded
on W.P(MD) No.12271 of 2018. This petition is by the writ petitioner. The
father of the writ petitioner died on 16.07.2006 while he was in employment of
the respondent - electricity company. His son - writ petitioner applied for
appointment on compassionate ground on 11.10.2017. Learned Single Judge
after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the rejection of application
for appointment on compassionate ground after about thirteen years need not
be interfered with and writ petition was dismissed. It is this order which is
challenged before this Court.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and having
considered the material on record, we find that the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner, much
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/4 W.A.(MD) No.37 of 2022
less any error apparent on the face of the record, which may be gone into by
this Court in an intra-Court appeal. This appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195. We
find that on facts, the said judgment will not be of any assistance to the
appellant.
4. This writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition would not survive.
[P.U.,J] [K.R.,J.]
07.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pkn/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/4 W.A.(MD) No.37 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
pkn/1
W.A.(MD) No.37 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/4
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!