logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2497 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : REV.APPL No. 132 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Parties : K. Lokesh Versus The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Co Ltd, Anna Salai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S.N. Ravichandran, Advocate. For the Respondent: C. Manoharan for TANGEDCO.
Date of Judgment : 17-03-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order 47, Rule 1 r/w Section 114 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC to Review the order passed in WA No.2847 of 2019, dated 05.03.2021 and thereby allow the writ appeal and pass such further or other orders as this Court.)

S.M. Subramaniam J.

1. The present review application has been instituted seeking to review the order dated 05.03.2021 passed in Writ Appeal No. 2847 of 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the documents submitted by him before the writ court have not been considered and, therefore, the present review application is to be allowed. He would draw the attention of this Court with reference to certain documents and submit that the said documents, though produced, have not been considered by the Court.

3. The very purpose and objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment is not to provide employment as a matter of right to the family of a public servant. The object is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the employee.

4. In the present case, this Court has considered the facts and circumstances as well as the legal position and passed the order. Re-adjudication of the grounds in a review proceeding is impermissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the grounds raised by the review petitioner cannot be considered.

5. The petitioner has not been able to establish any error apparent on the face of the record.

6. Accordingly, the review application stands dismissed. No costs.

 
  CDJLawJournal