Dismissed¶28

The District Collector v. Kalpana

Madras HC30 Jun 2025CMP(MD)/17534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; review application; Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 CPC; compassionate appointment; married daughter of deceased employee eligible; Village Assistant Karuppasamy; special time scale of pay; non-regularisation ground not in rejection order; reasons cannot be added during writ proceedings; scope of order cannot be subsequently expanded; dismissal at SR stage; W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023; District Collector Dindigul; Kalpana; Dindigul; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; G.R. Swaminathan; K. Rajasekar.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit filed in support of the condone-delay petition did not satisfy the Court; no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of the 380-day delay. ¶22

The District Collector Vs Kalpana — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 380 days in filing the Review Application against the order dated 01.09.2023 in W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The affidavit filed in support of the condone-delay petition did not satisfy the Court; no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of the 380-day delay.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Even on merits the review applicant has no case: it is not in dispute that even a married daughter of the deceased employee is eligible for compassionate appointment, the application was made well in time, all conditions of the scheme are fulfilled, and the Division Bench had taken these aspects into account.

¶22

Key takeaways

An order must be tested on the reason set out therein and its scope cannot be subsequently expanded; reasons cannot be added during the course of writ proceedings. The special-time-scale/non-regularisation ground was not in the rejection order and was never projected before the writ Court or the Division Bench.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (order by G.R. Swaminathan J., bench incl. K. Rajasekar J.), 30-06-2025 - CMP(MD)No.17534 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the District Collector, Dindigul, seeking condonation of 380 days' delay in filing Rev.Aplc(MD)SR.No.87667 of 2024 (Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 CPC) to review the Division Bench order dated 01.09.2023 in W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023, which had allowed the writ appeal of Kalpana, married daughter of late Village Assistant Karuppasamy, on compassionate appointment. Delay not condoned: no sufficient cause shown; even on merits the review applicant 'has no case', the married daughter's eligibility being undisputed and all scheme conditions fulfilled. The Additional Government Pleader's plea that Karuppasamy drew only special time scale of pay and was never regularised was absent from the rejection order and never urged before the writ Court or the Division Bench; the Court held the order must be tested on the reasons set out therein, its scope cannot be expanded, and reasons cannot be added during writ proceedings. CMP dismissed; Review Application dismissed at the SR stage.

¶1

CMP(MD) NO. 17534 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30-06-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

CMP(MD) NO. 17534 of 2024 IN

¶7

REV.APLC(MD) SR NO. 87667 OF 2024

¶8

The District Collector Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

Kalpana D/o.Karuppusamy, Midapadi Village, Palani Taluk,

¶12

Dindigul District.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer in C.M.P.(MD)No.17534 of 2024: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying this Court to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the present Review Application against the order dated 01.09.2023 in W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023.

¶15

Prayer in Rev.Aplc(MD)SR.No.87667 of 2024: This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of CPC praying this Court to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023, dated 01.09.2023 and to dismiss the writ appeal.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Satheeshkumar

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.)

¶21

The District Collector, Dindigul wants us to review the order dated 01.09.2023 made in W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023. However, the review application was filed with a delay of 380 days.

¶22

We went through the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. We are not satisfied with the reasons set out therein. No sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Even on merits, we are of the view that the review applicant has no case. One Karuppasamy who was working as Village Assistant passed away on 06.07.2018. The writ petitioner Kalpana was one of his daughters. It is true that Kalpana had been given in marriage when her father passed away. Unfortunately, Kalpana's husband also died on 14.05.2020. It is also not in dispute that even a married daughter of the deceased employee is eligible for compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Division Bench while allowing W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2023 took into account all these aspects. The application was made well in time. All the conditions set out in the scheme for compassionate appointment are fulfilled in this case. Looked at from any angle, we will not be justified in condoning the delay.

¶23

The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that Karuppasamy was only given special time scale of pay and he was not regularised as a Government servant. But then, this reason was not set out in the order rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. It is well settled that the order will have to be tested on the

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

reason set out therein and that its scope cannot be subsequently expanded. In other words, the reasons cannot be added during the course of writ proceedings. It is relevant

¶26

to note that this was not urged either before the writ Court or before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The ground now urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶27

was never projected earlier. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. The

¶28

Review Application is also dismissed at the SR stage.

¶29

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.) (K.RAJASEKAR J.) 30-06-2025

¶30

rmi

¶31

¶32