WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9500 of 2026 1. The Chief Engineer (Recruitment), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, No.144, Anna Salai,Chennai -2. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Madurai Distribution Circle, Madurai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs A.Uthanda Kumar ..Respondent(s) Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order dated 10.06.2024 made in W.P.(MD) No.23618 of 2023. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Ramanathan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The writ appeal had been filed by the respondents in W.P.(MD)No.23618 of 2023 aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 10.06.2024 by which order, the learned Single Judge had directed fresh consideration of the application filed by the writ petitioner seeking employment on compassionate grounds. 2.The respondent herein /writ petitioner had filed writ petition in the nature of certiorarified mandamus seeking interference with the order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the appellants herein by which order, the appellants had rejected to consider the application seeking employment on compassionate ground by the writ petitioner/respondent. 3.The father of the writ petitioner was working in the appellants’ Department and died on 24.05.2013 while in service. The mother of the respondent/writ petitioner had made an application seeking compassionate appointment. At that time, the respondent/writ petitioner was a minor. The application was rejected on 07.03.2018 stating that the application was not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 made within 3 years. After the respondent/writ petitioner attained the age of majority, he had again given an application and that came to be rejected. That was the subject matter of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. 4.We had examined the order, which was impugned in the writ petition. It would only be appropriate to refer to all the earlier orders rejecting the application seeking employment on compassionate ground either made by the mother, when the respondent / writ petitioner was minor or made by the writ petitioner, on attaining the age of majority. Thereafter, detailed reasons could be given for whatever decision taken by the appellants herein. 5.Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the earlier application was given by the mother when the respondent was a minor and after the respondent attained the age of majority, he had given a fresh application. Let all these factors be considered and a detailed order be passed, particularly giving reference to the earlier orders by the appellants herein. This fresh order may be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 6.This writ appeal trans disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 23-07-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes ta https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. ta WA(MD) No. 1051 of 2026 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis