N.Manivel v. The Principal District Judge

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER N.Manivel

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order made in Endt. ROC.No.3276/2024-A, dated 10.04.2024 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.Arjun Suresh ***** 1/6

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) This is a second round of challenge. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner who was serving in the Judicial Department died in the year 2006 and his mother who was given compassionate appointment in the place of the father died on 07.06.2008. The petitioner sought for compassionate appointment on 20.01.2011. The same was rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 13.07.2011 on the ground that the petitioner was a minor.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner made another application on 05.07.2019 after attaining majority. The said application was rejected by order dated 17.11.2021 on the ground that it is beyond the period of 3 years prescribed in G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, Dated 23.01.2020. This order was put in issue in W.P.No.27973 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 24.02.2022 dismissed the said Writ Petition upholding the order of rejection. 2/6

3. Then came the G.O.(Ms).No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1) Department, Dated 08.03.2023, which prescribed slightly modified Rules. After G.O.(Ms).No.33, the petitioner sought for review of the order of the Division Bench dated 24.02.2022. The Review Petition was dismissed on 16.11.2023 by the Division Bench.

4. A fresh attempt is now made by the petitioner relying upon G.O.(Ms).No.33, which removes the age limit for filing the application seeking compassionate appointment. When the order of rejection has been upheld by this Court and review of that order sought for after introduction of G.O.(Ms).No.33 has also been rejected. We see no ground to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that he had not invoked the benefit under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under G.O.(Ms).No.33, dated 08.03.2023 in the Review Petition. That by itself cannot be a ground to enable him to mount a fresh challenge to the same order which was upheld by this Court earlier. 3/6

6. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (R.S.M.,J.) (K.S.,J.) dsa 16.06.2025 Index : No Internet : Yes : No Speaking order 4/6

To 1.The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.

5/6

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and K.SURENDER, J.

dsa 16.06.2025 6/6