Lalitha v. the Conservator of Forest

Madras HC20 Jun 2025WP/22007/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; terminal benefits; monetary benefits; mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; personal dispute / personal grudge; officials cannot be made party; Forest Department; Conservator of Forest Salem; District Forest Officer Namakkal; deceased employee's mother vs widow; Madras High Court; 20.06.2025; C. Kumarappan J.; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Official respondents are directed to act in accordance with law; no costs awarded. ¶33-34

Lalitha Vs the Conservator of Forest — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.22007 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.22007 of 2025

Lalitha

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Conservator of Forest, Kumarasamipatti, Salem – 636 007.

¶11

The District Forest Officer, Collectorate Campus, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal District, Namakkal – 637 003.

¶12

Meena ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to not grant the appointment of the petitioner's deceased son V.Raghunanthan job on compassionate grounds and not to disburse the monetary benefits, to the third respondent herein, based upon the petitioner's representations cum objections dated 04.12.2023 and 26.05.2025.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.22007 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Parameshwaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a mandamus to direct the respondents not to grant the appointment of the deceased petitioner's son, viz., V. Raghunanthan, on compassionate grounds and not to disburse the monetary benefits to the third respondent herein, based upon the petitioner's representations cum objections dated 04.12.2023 and 26.05.2025.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally

¶22

the petitioner's husband, viz., Vijayaraj, was serving as a Security in the Forest Department. Subsequently, while he was in service, he died during 2005. On the death of the petitioner's husband, his second son, viz., V.Raghunanthan, was appointed on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, he also died during 2023 while he was in service. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the death of her son was only due to the harassment of his wife qua the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner,

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.22007 of 2025

¶26

being a mother, submits that any terminal benefits of her son should not be disbursed to the third respondent unless she gives a no objection. In this connection, the petitioner sent representations dated 04.12.2023 and 26.05.2024.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

While perusing the submissions of the petitioner, the representation

¶29

seems to be the result of personal turmoil and personal grudges between the petitioner and the third respondent. In which they cannot make the official as party to that. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition.

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.22007 of 2025

¶33