G.Mariammal v. The District Collector
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.146 of 2025 in W.A.(MD).No.365 of 2024 G.Mariammal W/o Late M.Mahesh ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The District Collector, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Joint Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, No.22, Raja Muthiah Salai, Chennai - 600 003.
4. The Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Military Lines, Tirunelveli - 627 002.
..Respondents Review Application filed under Order XVVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Page 1/5
Section 114 of C.P.C. against the judgment passed by this Court dated 04.04.2025 passed in W.A.(MD).No.365 of 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.Alagarsamy.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 judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in W.A.(MD).No.365 of 2024.
2. The review application has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.22257 of 2022 seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent/District Collector dated 13.08.2022 and to direct the official respondents to provide the post of Junior Assistant, taking into account the date of death of her husband's seniority in the compassionate appointment diary and her educational qualification at par with her juniors who were given compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant overlooking the seniority to the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of joining of her juniors, in a time bound manner. The said writ petition was allowed. The above said Writ Appeal has been filed by the State/District Collectors against the order passed in the said writ petition. The said writ appeal was allowed stating that the petitioner was already appointed as Record Clerk which itself is a concession and Page 2/5
she cannot seek another concession to be appointed a Junior Assistant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
5. The petitioner had accepted the offer and had given an undertaking that she will not claim the post of Junior Assistant or file a petition claiming Junior Assistant post. She had sent repeated representations to the Government and considering the dire need and urgency, she was offered the post of Record Clerk. Further, the Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not an absolute right.
4. Moreover, in the case on hand, there is no error apparent on the face of record to review the judgment passed by this Court in the said Writ Appeal. Further, in the decision of this court reported in 2018 (3) CTC 122 [D.Rajappa and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9] it is held that differing view disturbing the finality of judgment is not permissible in review. Therefore, 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. Page 3/5
6. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that no ground is made out to review the judgment passed by this Court dated 04.04.2025 passed in W.A(MD).No.365 of 2024. Therefore, Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.
(J.N.B,J.) (S.S.Y., J.) Index : Yes / No 22.08.2025 Internet : Yes vsi J. NISHA BANU, J.
Page 4/5
and S.SRIMATHY,J.
vsi Rev.Appln.No.146 of 2025 22.08.2025 Page 5/5