Dismissed

K.Velan,S/o.Kannu v. The Chairman Tangedco

Madras HC21 Jan 2022WP/16342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for petitioners whose lands were allegedly acquired by the respondent Electricity Board. The court held that since the petitioners admitted selling the land to a private company before the government acquired it, they were not eligible for the benefits, and the petition was not maintainable as it had been previous

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

K.Velan,S/o.Kannu Vs The Chairman Tangedco — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

W.P.NO.16342 OF 2018

¶6

AND

¶7

W.M.P.NO.19499 OF 2018

¶8

K.Velan 2. M.Chellapandian

¶9

S.Deepak Kanna

¶10

A.Nagaraj

¶11

J.Karthikeyan

¶12

S.Nagalakshmi

¶13

R.Ramesh

¶14

T.Selvaraj 9. P.Thiyagarajan 10.J.Sureshkumar 11.G.Velu 12.S.Palraj 13.P.Saravanan 14.S.Bhavanishankar 15.S.Pushparaj 16.S.Sathyaseelan 17.S.Jamunabai 18.G.Mohankumar 19.S.Jeyakanthan 20.N.P.Karthick 21.G.Jerinkumar 22.K.suganya 23.K.Vijayakumar 24.K.Soundarajan 25.T.Manickam 26.R.Natarajan 27.A.Johnson 28.S.Aravindan 29.M.Balaprasanth 30.M.Subha 31.K.Durai 32.G.Suganthi Sheela 33.K.Mohanraj 34.A.Poongodi 35.J.Naresh Krishna 36.N.Sudalaiyandi

¶15

...Petitioners

¶16

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1. The Chairman, TANGEDCO, N.P.K.K.R. Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer, North Madras Thermal Power Project,
North Chennai, Chennai - 57.
3. The Chief Engineer/Personnel, TANGEDCO,
Tamilnadu Generation of Electricity Distribution Corporation N.P.K.K.R. Maligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
4. The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate, Thiruthani Main Road, Thiruvallore District,
Thiruvallore - 602 001. ...Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent connected with proceeding in Lr.No.Tha.Po./Va.Se.Mi.Ni/Me.Po/Ka.Pa./U.Se.Po./ Ni.Kai./E.Po/Ko.W.P.No.11869/2006/No.991/15, dated 28.09.2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide employment to the eligible persons from the petitioner's family, whose cultivable lands have been acquired by the M/s.VGP Wonder World and the same lands have been acquired by North Chennai Thermal Power Project from Ennore Village in pursuance B.P.(FB).No.3 dated 25.10.1990 as recommended by the 4^th respondent in his proceedings dated 20.06.1999, with all attendant and consequential benefits.

¶20

For	Petitioners	: Mr.P.S.Dinesh Kumar for Mr.K.Gajendran
For	R1 & 2	: Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For	R4	: Mr.Veda Bagath Singh, Special Government Pleader
For	R3	: No Appearance

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioners herein were not the owners of the land, when the lands were acquired by the Government for utilization by the Electricity Board. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978, which came to be adopted by the respondent-Board in B.P.(FB) No.3, dated 25.10.1990, extends compassionate appointment to one person in a family whose lands have been acquired.

¶24

In the instant case, the petitioners themselves admit that they have sold the lands to M/s.VGP Wonder World, which is a private person and thereafter, the Government had acquired the lands from M/s.VGP Wonder World. While that being so, the benefits under the proceedings dated 25.10.1990 cannot be extended to the petitioners, who were not the land owners.

¶25

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents have also pointed out to their proceedings dated 24.02.2009, wherein the request of the petitioners have already been rejected on the same ground that they were not the owners of the lands when it was acquired and the petitioners herein have not challenged the rejection order. As such, the writ petition itself may not be maintainable.

¶26

In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

hvk

¶32

¶33

The Chairman, TANGEDCO, N.P.K.K.R. Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

The Chief Engineer,

¶36

North Madras Thermal Power Project,

¶37

North Chennai, Chennai - 57.

¶38

The Chief Engineer/Personnel, TANGEDCO,

¶39

Tamilnadu Generation of Electricity Distribution Corporation N.P.K.K.R. Maligai,

¶40

Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶41

The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Thiruthani Main Road, Thiruvallore District, Thiruvallore - 602 001.

¶42

+1cc to Mr.P.S.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.4195 +1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, S.R.No.3743

¶43

W.P.No.16342 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.19499 of 2018

¶44

MT(CO) PM/08/02/2022

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Velan,S/o.Kannu v. The Chairman Tangedco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Velan,S/o.Kannu v. The Chairman Tangedco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ramamoorthy Vs The Home Secretary

Mr.R.Alexander, Vs The District Collector

N.Revathi, D/o.Late E.Sekar Vs The Chairman and Managing

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Presiding Officer

C.Sellamuthu Vs The Advocate General of

The Management, Vs K.Shanmugam