w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K. Ravi v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- RAVI AND COMPANY LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U74300JK1997PLC001627

    W.P. No. 26613 of 2011

    Decided On, 04 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

    For the Petitioner: P. Nagaraju, Advocate. For the Respondents: K. Magesh, Spl. Govt. Pleader.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order made in Na.Ka.A1/21149/2007 dated 29.09.2011 by the 2nd respondent and the subsequent order made in Na.Ka.A1/21149/2007 dated 12.10.2011 by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner in the 4th respondent Office.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.A1/21149/2007 dated 29.09.2011 and also the subsequent order made in Na.Ka.A1/21149/2007 dated 12.10.2011 by the 2nd respondent, by which the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the application was submitted belatedly after expiry of three years and it was also not submitted within the extended period of three months. The petitioner also sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to give employment to him on compassionate ground.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, who had been working as a Village Assistant under the 4th respondent, died in harness on 05.05.2003, leaving behind the petitioner and also the mother, elder brother, elder sister and three younger brothers of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner and his siblings gave consent to him for getting appointment on compassionate ground and at the time of his father's death, the petitioner was 29 years old. When he had approached the 4th respondent for compassionate appointment on account of his father's death while in service, he was informed that pursuant to the ban for new recruitment by the Government, he cannot be appointed and his application would be considered on seniority basis. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to the lifting of ban, he was asked to submit a fresh representation with the request for providing Government employment on compassionate ground and the Government also extended three months' period on 12.03.2007 for receipt of such application on account of the ban. According to the petitioner, the said extension is not applicable to him, as his mother had made an application within the stipulated time. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he approached the 2nd respondent to know about the fate of his application, he received a letter dated 15.04.2009 from the 2nd respondent, with a direction to participate in the personal enquiry, in response to which, the petitioner submitted all the required certificates for consideration. Despite production of all documents, there was no response from the 2nd respondents and thereafter, his mother send a representation dated 01.10.2009 to the Chief Minister's Cell and to the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which, the impugned orders came to be passed, rejecting the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit as early as in October, 2012, wherein it was stated that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted his representation on 14.02.2007 before lifting of the ban order by the Government and the application said to be forwarded by the mother of the petitioner within three years was not received by any of the respondents. It was further stated that though a grace time of three months was given by the Government for submission of applications for compassionate appointment, the said extension of time was not utilized by the petitioner. The averment made by the petitioner that a personal enquiry was conducted on 15.04.2009 is baseless, as no such enquiry / interview was conducted by the Office of the respondents. Hence, it was finally stated that since the petitioner failed to submit his representation in time, his request was declined vide impugned orders, which do not warrant any interference by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a ban for new recruitment from 2001 to 2006, consequent to which, the petitioner was not able to forward any application for compassionate appointment. However, the mother of the petitioner sent an application in this regard within three years and though the petitioner attended the personal enqury on the instruction of the 2nd respondent and produced all requisite documents, there was no positive response. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the extension of three months' time is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as he had submitted the application even prior to that and therefore, the rejection on account of delay and laches has no legs to stand.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the request of the petitioner was rejected strictly in accordance with the Rules and Government Order and since there was a ban on recruitment, the application submitted during that period cannot be accounted for. Thereafter, the Government itself, by its order dated 12.03.2007 in G.O.Ms.No.42 Labour and Employment had provided an opportunity to submit applications for compassionate appointment to persons like that of the petitioner, which was not duly utilized by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders passed in consonance with the order and Rules, need not be set aside and the request of the petitioner cannot be considered at this distant point of time.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material documents available on record.

7. A perusal of the case reveals that the father of the petitioner died on 05.05.2003 and thereafter, mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner on 19.04.2005. The Tahsildar / 4th respondent herein, apart from furnishing the details, such as family members of the deceased, indigenous circumstances of the family, had also recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. However, by the impugned orders dated 29.09.2011 and 12.10.2011, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not sent the application within three months in terms of Government Order dated 12.03.2007. Of course, it is true that there was a ban for recruitment from 2001 to 2005 and the same was lifted on 21.02.2006 and subsequent thereto, another Government Order dated 12.03.2007 was issued, extending the period of three months for submission of application for compassionate appointment. When the application was made by the petitioner prior to the issuance of Government Order dated 12.03.2007, the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that only those persons, who had made applications within the extended period of three months alone were considered for compassionate appointment, cannot be accepted and is liable to be summarily rejected. The said Government Order stipulates that those, who have not applied during ban period, were given time of three months to make applications. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner had made an application prior to the issuance of Government Order and therefore, the rejection on the particular ground cannot be accepted and is illogical.

8. It is no doubt true that the compassionate appointment cannot be demanded as a matter of right and only to safeguard the family, which is in distress on account of demise of the employee / earning member of the family and to come out from the indigenous circumstances, such appointments are widely made, though it is construed to be a back door entry. I have also considered various judgments of the Apex Court and rendered a finding with regard to compassionate appointment in the case of S.Gowtham Balu The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 and another [W.P.(MD)Nos.4129, 7045, 16624 and 20786 of 2014] decided on 24.09.2018. A harmonious reading of the averments made in the affidavit as well as in the counter affidavit projects that this case stands on a different footing.

9. Though the argument put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that there was a ban for recruitment and the application submitted for appointment on compassionate ground during that period cannot be entertained by the respondents, looks sound at the first instance, it is pertinent to mention here that there was a ban only for new recruitment and there was no ban for receipt of applications for consideration of compassionate appointment futuristically. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is substance and merits in the contention of the petitioner and the Writ Petition will have to succeed.

10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.09.2011 and 12.10.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent are hereby set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on or before the end of December, 2020 and in case the petitioner is not provided employment on or before the expiry date, he is deemed to have entered service from 01.01.2021 and he is entitled to the salary of last grade employee till he is actually placed in service and the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

said amount could be recovered from the Officer responsible to comply with the order. Since the request of the petitioner was rejected on 12.10.2011 for the second time by the 2nd respondent and on account of setting aside of the said order now, the petitioner is deemed to have entered into service from 12.10.2011. However, he is not entitled to any service benefits, seniority, wages and the like and the interregnum period will be taken into account only for the purpose of terminal benefits like pension, gratuity, etc., as if he joined the service on the said date and for that purpose alone, he should be treated to be in continuous service. It is made clear that in this order, this Court does not direct the 2nd respondent to consider the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as being done in the usual course, but specifically directs the 2nd respondent to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on or before the end of December, 2020 so as to avoid one more round of litigation. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-09-2020 Yashwanth @ Yashavant Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2020 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (Presently NLC India Limited), Rep. by its General Manager (Contracts) Corporate Office, Neyveli Versus M/s. TENOVA India Pvt. Ltd., Alwarpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Mallappa & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-09-2020 Raghavan & Another Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2020 Yogesh Agarwal & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. herein by: The Investigation Officer Cyber Crime Police Station (CID), Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Nagalakshmi (died) & Another Versus Sivaprakasam, Rep.by his Power Agent and his wife Senthamil Selvi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Rajegowda @ Guruswamy & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-09-2020 Tousif Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Maharudragouda Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
23-09-2020 Heer A. Rajani, Rep. by her Power of Attorney Amit M. Rajani Versus M.M. Syed Sikkander, Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Ravi Dixit Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-09-2020 Ramesh Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-09-2020 Shivanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Dept. of Revenue, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Jantra Wanida & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Yellappa Versus The Management of NWKRTC, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, Gadag High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 M/s. Standard Metalloys Private Limited, through its Authorised Signatory Sumit Tripathi Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-09-2020 Thankappan Pillai Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
18-09-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Mahasamy Versus Minor Prakash, Rep. By his father & natural guardian Rajendran, Tiruppur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Vangamudi Kasimayan, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., rep PP. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-09-2020 Anandi Versus State, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-09-2020 R. Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
15-09-2020 Makdum @ Makdum Shariff Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by HCGP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Sapna Chouhan & Another Versus State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2020 Zameer Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-09-2020 Kuruva Muliniti Lakshmana, Kurnool DT. Versus State of AP., Rep. PP. Hyd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
11-09-2020 Mukund Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 B.S. Yediyurappa Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Dharwad & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Amarendra Bhagawati Versus The State of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy., Deptt. of Excise, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Ghy.-06 & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 A. Sudharani Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
10-09-2020 G. Chitra Poornima & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Under Secretary Revenue Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 Punitha Versus State by Turuvekere Police Turuvekere, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chand Rakodi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam Versus Janaki High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Sir Venkatramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep by its Managing Partner, M. Sivanandam & Another Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Karur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Natarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Municipal Admin & Water Supply, City V, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Alfadul Sobhi & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 F. Srilekha & Another Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by S.P.P., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 M. Ravi & Others Versus State by Vishwanathapura P.S., Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-09-2020 Yedla Babulu & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (J.A & L.A), T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 Taba Tagar Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-09-2020 Kothapalli Govinda Rajulu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 Meharaj @ Meharaj Begum Versus State by K.G. Halli P.S., Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 Philip Stephen Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Vazhuvoor Ravi Versus The State of TamilNadu, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
31-08-2020 M/s. Kaveri Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Rishabchand Bhansali Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(1), Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory R. Eswaran Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Shifa Khairun Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Chandan @ Abcd Chandan Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor, Benglauru High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Ponnayal & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Additional Chief Secretary, Highways & Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 M/s. Anish Orchardes Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director S. Bhavani & Others Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as Provisional Liquidator of Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. Orchards (India) Ltd. Rep. by Administrator K. Alagiriswami & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 K.V. Sayan & Another Versus The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Kotagiri Police Station, The Nilgiris & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Mohammed Anees Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-08-2020 Praveena @ Itachi Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Kamakshipalya Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeep Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2020 Pradeepa Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 K. Ranga Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-08-2020 M/s. Leo Activation, Division of Black Pencil Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Rep. by Its Director Versus The 49th All India Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kochi, Represented by Its Organizing Committee Chairman, Dr. V.P. Paily High Court of Kerala
26-08-2020 Muhammed Versus State of Kerala Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam Through S.H.O. Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
25-08-2020 Sree Gurudeva Charitable & Educational Trust, Kattachira, Rep. by Its General Secretary Subash Vasu & Others Versus K. Gopalakrishnan & Another High Court of Kerala
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jaikesaram, Yadadri-Bhongir District Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 Usha Ramachandran Versus Canara Bank, Rep by its Branch Manager, Anna Nagar (East) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 R. Pirabala Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-08-2020 Badavath Leela Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration ((Spl.(Law & Order), Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-08-2020 TNCSC Employees Union, Affiliated with Labour Progressive Federation, Rep. by its State President, Chennai Versus Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras