S.Karthika v. Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOFTURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Review Aplc.(MD)No.163 of 2025 in W.A.(MD).No.2661 of 2024 S.Karthika D/o Late Balasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Thirunelveli Limited, Thirunelveli District - 627 003.

2. The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Thirunelveli Limited, Thirunelveli District - 627 003.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Transport (TBC) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

4. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Page 1/5

Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

..Respondents Review Application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC as against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.A. (MD)No.2661 of 2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.Kumaravel.K

O R D E R

(The order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J.) This Review Application has been filed as against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.A.(MD).No.2661 of 2024.

2. The review application has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment as the petitioner's father who was an employee of the State Transport Corporation died while in service. The above said Writ Appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation against the order passed in W.P.(MD).No. 21953 of 2021. The Writ Court, relying on the order dated 05.08.2021 passed in W.P.(MD).No.9479 of 2018 in the case of A.Lalith Kumar vs. The School Education Department and others and also relying on G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, directed the appellant/State Transport Corporation, to grant Page 2/5

compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

3. According to the review petitioner, though her brother is a Government employee, he is residing in Chennai and not supporting the family but the said contention was not considered by this Court in the writ appeal filed by the State Transport Corporation and allowed the Writ Appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. The main contention of the review petitioner is that though her brother is employed, he is not supporting the family but the same was not considered by this Court.

6. There is no evidence produced by the review petitioner to prove that his brother is not supporting the family. This Court, considering the Integrated Income Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, stating the annual income of the family as Rs.2,11,872/-, and that the petitioner's mother is receiving pension of Rs.17,656/- p.m., allowed the writ appeal filed by the State Transport Corporation by setting aside the order passed in the writ petition.

4. Moreover, in the case on hand, there is no error apparent on the Page 3/5

face of record to review the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Appeal. The review Court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment.

6. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that no ground is made out to review the order dated 26.03.2025. Therefore, Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

(J.N.B,J.) (S.S.Y., J.) Index : Yes / No 22.08.2025 Internet : Yes vsi J. NISHA BANU, J.

and S.SRIMATHY,J.

Page 4/5

vsi Rev.Appln.No.163 of 2025 22.08.2025 Page 5/5