M.R.Sekar v. The Commissioner Of Sugar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and W.M.P.No.19900 of 2025 M.R.Sekar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.
The Commissioner of Sugar, No.474, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
2.
The District Collector, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi - 606 202.
3.
The Joint Registrar / Managing Director, Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., (Unit-1), Moongilthuraipattu, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi - 605 702.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for an issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of Na.Ka.No.1412/2020/LOC dated 04.03.2025 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to provide
compassionate appointment as per the educational qualification of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2 : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham Government Advocate for R3
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2025, passed by the third respondent, by and which, the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment was rejected, only on the ground that his brother viz., R.Rajendiran, is in Government employment.
Therefore, according to the existing guidelines, the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment. His further submission is that even according to the guidelines, if such Government employee is not supporting the family, then the other legal heir is entitled for compassionate appointment. Hence prayed to quash the impugned order.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that the petitioner has already given representation during 2016 and it was rejected vide letter dated 08.06.2016. Therefore, without challenging the earlier rejection order, taking advantage of the fresh guidelines, the petitioner cannot create new cause of action. Therefore, contended that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment is well merited. Hence prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. From looking at the affidavit, it is apparent that the petitioner's father died during 1993. We are in 2025. At this length of time, any appointment on the basis of compassionate ground has to be seen with forensic insight. In the case on hand, the petitioner's request was originally rejected vide letter dated 08.06.2016. Apparently, such rejection was not challenged in accordance with law. Therefore, in the absence of challenge to earlier rejection, the new guideline will not enure any benefit to the petitioner. Further the long delay has further strengthen the rejection order.
6. In such view of the matter, this Court do not find any merit in present writ petition and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.06.2025 veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To 1.
The Commissioner of Sugar, No.474, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.
2.
The District Collector, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi - 606 202.
3.
The Joint Registrar / Managing Director, Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., (Unit-1), Moongilthuraipattu, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi - 605 702.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
veda W.P.No.17571 of 2025 11.06.2025