Madras High Court
REV.APLW/158/2026 of M.SAGUNTHALA Vs The Director on 9 September 2026
REV.APLW No. 158 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
REV.APLW No. 158 of 2026
M.Sagunthala
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director
Department of Atomic Energy,
General Services Organization,
Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
2. The Chief Administrative officer
Department of Atomic Energy,
GSO, Kalpakkam,
Chengalpattu District – 603102.
3. The Associate Director
Department of Atomic Energy,GSO,
Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
4. The Administrative officer
Department of Atomic Energy, GSO,
Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
5. The Assistant Personal officer
Department of Atomic Energy,
GSO, Kalpakkam,
Chengalpattu District – 603102.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC to review the common order of this Court dated 23.06.2026 made in WP.No.
10919 of 2026 and allow the writ petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
REV.APLW No. 158 of 2026
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
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The learned counsel for the review petitioner would contend that the representation was submitted in the year 2015 seeking compassionate appointment. However, this Court considered the said point and made a finding that the petitioner has not submitted any proof to show that the representation was received by the respondents nor produced any acknowledgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. Re-adjudication of merits in a review petition is not desirable since it would fall beyond the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. This Court has considered the reasons given in the impugned order by the respondents and considered the issue on merits. That being so, the petitioner has not established any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review powers.
3. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI
REV.APLW No. 158 of 2026
To
1. The Director Department of Atomic Energy, General Services Organization, Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
2. The Chief Administrative officer Department of Atomic Energy, GSO, Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
3. The Associate Director Department of Atomic Energy,GSO, Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
4. The Administrative officer Department of Atomic Energy, GSO, Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
5. The Assistant Personal officer Department of Atomic Energy, GSO, Kalpakkam, Chengalpattu District – 603102.
REV.APLW No. 158 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. SLI REV.APLW No. 158 of 2026 09-09-2026