Madras High Court
A.Elangovan vs The District Collector on 22 March, 2022
W.A(MD)No. 262 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)No. 262 of 2022
A.Elangovan .. Appellant
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli District,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Thuraiyur,
Tiruchirapalli District. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 25.02.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No. 800 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 25
February 2022 recorded on W.P.(MD) No. 800 of 2021. This appeal is
by the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 262 of 2022
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that, the father of the petitioner had died in the year 2001 and the
brother of the petitioner - though a Secondary Grade Teacher is not
taking care of the family and therefore in view of the policy of the
State as contained in G.O.No. 18 dated 23 January 2020, more
particularly clause (iv) thereof the case of the petitioner ought to have
been considered. It is submitted that dismissal of the writ petition is
erroneous and therefore this appeal be entertained.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader has supported
the order of learned Single Judge by contending that, the claim for
compassionate appointment after two decades could not have been
entertained and learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the
petition. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds
as under:-
4.1 It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 262 of 2022
had died on 25 July 2001. At that time, the age of the petitioner was
about 21 years. He had made an application on 19 September 2001.
The same was not considered favourably. In the year 2021, the
petitioner filed petition before this Court claiming compassionate
appointment which is dismissed by learned Single Judge.
4.2 We find that, in the facts as noted above, discretion
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not have been
exercised in favour of the petitioner and the same is rightly not
exercised by learned Single Judge. We do not find any error to be
corrected in this intra-court appeal. This appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
4.3 So far reference to the policy of the State as
contained in G.O.No. 18 dated 23 January 2020, more particularly
clause (iv) thereof is concerned, in our view, the legal heirs of a person
who had died before two decades could not have claimed any benefit
therefrom. Even otherwise, such policies are more to uphold the object
sought to be achieved and could not substitute as employment
generation opportunities for any specific group. Further, the brother of
the petitioner is already working as a school teacher – which is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 262 of 2022
additional tilting factor, against the appellant. Further, the father of the
petitioner was in pensionable service and the mother of the petitioner
is getting family pension. In totality we find that, no interference is
required in the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
(P.U., J) (K.R., J)
22.03.2022
Index : No
ssm/11
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirapalli District,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Thuraiyur,
Tiruchirapalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 262 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
ssm
W.A(MD)No.262 of 2022
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
