R.Vijaya v. The District Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH R.Vijaya ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Karur Collectorate Office, Karur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Karur District.
3.State : Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode Unit, Erode.
4.State : Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to order passed in Na.Ka.Aa.3/27225/2008 dated 04.04.2024 issued by the first respondent thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass order in
disbursing the terminal benefits of the petitioner's husband, who died on 18.05.2023 along with all pensionary benefits to the petitioner and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner's elder daughter S.R.Lavanya, in accordance with her educational qualification. For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.Aa.3/27225/2008, dated 04.04.2024, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass appropriate orders for disbursing the terminal benefits of the petitioner's husband, who passed away on 18.05.2023, along with all pensionary benefits to the petitioner; and further, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner's elder daughter, S.R.Lavanya, in accordance with her educational qualifications.
2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband was appointed as 'Junior Assistant' in the second respondent Office through TNPSC recruitment in 1997 and was serving as a 'Revenue Inspector' in Karur District at the time of his demise on 18.05.2023. It is contended that the criminal case registered against the petitioner's husband under Section 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pertains to an occurrence alleged to have taken place in the year 1993, when he was not serving as a Government servant but as a 'Contract Labourer' in Parantamangalam and Thalavaipatty Society and he was arrayed as a private individual in the said case.
4. It is further submitted that since the charges were not in relation to his official duties as a Government servant and as he passed away during service, the criminal charges against him stood abated and hence, the petitioner is entitled to disbursal of all terminal and pensionary benefits along with a compassionate appointment for her elder daughter, S.R.Lavanya, based on her educational qualification.
5. It is also submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's representation dated 13.06.2023, by the first respondent vide order dated 04.04.2024, is unjustified and liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the impugned communication dated 04.04.2024 is only an information notice, issued to inform the petitioner about the pendency of the criminal case against her late husband and others and it does not amount to a final or adverse order and hence, the same does not warrant any challenge before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. It is further contended that the writ petition lacks merit, as the petitioner has alternative remedies under law and there has been no violation of any legal right, warranting interference by this Court.
8. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader and perusing the materials placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned communication
dated 04.04.2024 is merely an intimation to the petitioner regarding the pending criminal case and it does not constitute a speaking or final order rejecting her claim.
9. It is well settled that interlocutory or informational communications, which do not affect the rights of parties, are not amenable to challenge in writ proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and disbursal of pensionary benefits involves factual adjudication and administrative scrutiny, which this Court cannot undertake under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the criminal case is admittedly still pending and the petitioner's entitlement remains disputed.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies in the manner known to law, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
NCC : Yes / No 15.07.2025 Index : Yes / No smn2
To:- 1.The District Collector, Karur Collectorate Office, Karur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Karur District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Erode Unit, Erode.
4.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem.
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH , J.
smn2 15.07.2025