Allowed

Vijayalakshmi v. Sudha

Madras HC28 Jan 2026LPA(MD)/7/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge contempt order directing a Municipality Commissioner to relax the age limit and give compassionate appointment to a deceased employee's daughter. The Division Bench held the power to relax the age limit vests only with the Government, not the Commissioner, allowed the appeal and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.10.2025 in Cont.P.(MD)No.3075 of 2024 set aside; respondent at liberty to seek age relaxation from the Government; connected CMP closed.

Vijayalakshmi Vs Sudha — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.18671 of 2025

¶8

1.Vijayalakshmi Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Tirunelveli.

¶9

2.Rajeshwaran, Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, Presently working as The Commisioner, Ambasamudram Municipality, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants -vs-

¶10

Sudha

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 22.10.2025, passed in Cont.P.(MD) No.3075 of 2024, on the file of this Court.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian For Respondents : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

¶19

The contempt petitioner, namely Sudha sought for compassionate appointment in view of the sudden demise of her father in harness and her application for compassionate appointment was not considered positively by the Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality for the reason that she had crossed 40 years of age on the date of application. While the Rules framed for compassionate appointment prescribe 40 years as upper limit for the children to claim compassionate appointment, the writ petition filed by the respondent herein seeking mandamus to consider the representation was earlier disposed with a direction to consider the representation dated 12.12.2023 and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶23

2.When the representation of the respondent was rejected, stating that the Government had granted exemption under Clause 17 of G.O.(M)No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1) Department, dated 08.03.2023, the writ petitioner has filed contempt petition stating that the earlier communication of the Commissioner was a promise of positive consideration of the representation, but later it has been wrongly rejected. Hence, there is a wilful disobedience. In the contempt proceedings, the learned Single Judge directed the Commissioner to comply with order of the writ Court and report on 05.11.2025 by giving appointment relaxing the age limit in excise of power under Clause 17 of G.O.(MD)No.33. Being aggrieved, the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed.

¶24

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Corporation Commissioner is not empowered to give relaxation as per Clause 17 of the Government Order and it is the Government to consider the case of relaxation of age. He further submits that the request of the Commissioner to the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department to consider the request of

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

¶27

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶28

the petitioner for relaxing the age limit had not been positively considered by the Secretary vide his proceedings dated 14.03.2025 and the request for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner was rejected. There is no wilful disobedience of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶29

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records.

¶30

5.This Court finds that the power to relax the age limit is vested only with the Government and not with the Commissioner of Corporation. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings directing the Commissioner to invoke the power under Clause 17 of G.O.(MD)No.33, dated 08.03.2023 to relax the age limit and give appointment to the writ petitioner is contrary to the law established.

¶31

6.Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.10.2025 in Cont.P.(MD)No. 3075 of 2024 is set aside. The writ petitioner, who is the respondent

¶32

4/6

¶33

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

¶34

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶35

herein is at liberty to challenge the order of the Commissioner before the Government and pray for relaxation of age limit. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 28.01.2026

¶37

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta

¶38

5/6

¶39

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

¶40

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶41

DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶42

¶43

L.P.A.(MD)No.7 of 2025

¶44

28.01.2026

¶45

6/6

¶46

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

Vijayalakshmi v. Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi v. Sudha

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

The Director of Elementary Education Vs D Marial

M.Sasikumar Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Vannappan C Vs The District Collector

Banumathy Vs The Registrar General (Appellate Authority)

Masanam Vs The District Collector

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs K.Janarthanan