The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to pay compassionate allowance. The Court held that a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act renders the case undeserving of such relief.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
M.Gopal
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 13.10.2016 and 18.02.2019 and to pay the compassionate allowance to him.
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Indrachithu For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raj, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for Mandamus to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 13.10.2016 and 08.02.2019 and to pay compassionate allowance to him.
2.Mr.T.Indrachithu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, taking this Court through the records of the case, would submit that the petitioner got involved in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and was initially convicted for a term of 4 years, thereafter, it was reduced to 6 months. He has already underwent imprisonment and he is out of prison. In the meanwhile, on account of the said conviction, he was dismissed from service on 25.05.2001. Now, even though he has put in 18 years of service, at this old age, he is finding it difficult to sustain himself and therefore, he made the aforesaid representations for grant of compassionate allowance.
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Section 40(1) of Compassionate Allowance Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, would submit that the authority competent to dismiss or remove from service, can also sanction compassionate allowance upto 2/3rd of pension in a case of dismissal or removal from service. Since in this case, the petitioner has put in 18 years of service, this is the fit case and therefore, the respondents must be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner.
4.Per contra, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that this is the case of corruption and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for the compassionate allowance.
5.I considered the rival submissions made on either side.
6.When the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, it cannot be said that this is a
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
05.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No
Yuva
To
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Yuva
W.P.(MD)No.5538 of 2019
05.07.2023
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compassionate allowance can be granted to a petitioner dismissed for conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether the Court can direct the respondents to consider representations for compassionate allowance in a corruption case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M.Gopal
The State Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Government Home (Police) Department
The Director General of Police
The Inspector General of Police
The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
