Madras High Court
WP(MD)/4312/2021 of KANDHASAMY.P.K Vs TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPE on 14 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021
CNR:{HCMD010153182021}
P.K.Kandhasamy
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamilnadu Newsprint And Papers Ltd.,
Rep by its General Manager (Human Resource)
(A Government of Tamilnadu Enterprise)
Kagithapuram , Karur District - 639136.
2. K.Palanisamy
3. K.Subramani
4. K.Vellaisamy
5. K.Ponnammal
6. K.Parvathi
7. Ganesan
8. Krishnamoorthy
9. Ramakrishnan
10.Raja Rajeswari
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in HR/LEG/2020 dated 03.12.2020 and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide
WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021
compensatory employment to the petitioner’s son namely, K.Manikandan.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. B.Prasanna Vinoth
For Respondent(s):
Mr. M.P.Senthil
for R1
Mr. B. Rajesh Saravanan
for R3.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 3rd December 2020, and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to provide compensatory employment to the son of the petitioner namely K.Manikandan.
2. Heard Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. Rajesh Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
3. The facts are not in dispute. A property in survey No.11/2B measuring an extent of 1.34 acres in Mondipatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District owned by the mother of the petitioner, Palaniammal was acquired by the 1st respondent for their factory and it was agreed by the 1st respondent that they will provide employment to one of the family members of the said Palaniammal. There are rival
WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021 claims among the legal heirs of Palaniammal to the said employment. The writ petitioner is asking employment for his son Mr. Manikandan, whereas the 3rd respondent is claiming employment for his son.
4. In the impugned order dated 3rd December 2020, the 1st respondent has informed that No objection Certificate has not been obtained from all the eligible legal heirs and therefore, they are not in a position to consider the request of the petitioner and in case, No objection Certificate is produced from all the eligible legal heirs, they are ready and willing to consider the request of the writ petitioner.
5. Mr. Prasanna Vinoth, would submit that out of nine eligible legal heirs, other than the 3rd respondent, rest of them have given No Objection.
6. The 1st respondent will not be in a position to grant employment unless No Objection Certificate is produced from all the eligibility legal heirs. Admittedly, even according to Mr. Prasanna Vinoth, the 3rd respondent is objecting the grant of employment to the writ petitioner.
WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021 Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order of the 1st respondent.
6. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to renew his request with the 1st respondent along with the No Objection Certificate from all the eligible legal heirs. The same liberty is extended to the 3rd respondent as well.
14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No psm
WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021 N.DILIP KUMAR, J. psm WP(MD) No. 4312 of 2021 14-10-2026