{"id":19876,"date":"2006-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006"},"modified":"2015-04-10T23:01:49","modified_gmt":"2015-04-10T17:31:49","slug":"n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 17\/06\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN            \n\nWRIT PETITION No.11984 of 2001   \nand \nWPMP.No.32613 of 2004    \n\nN.Mariappan                            ...  Petitioner\n\n                -Vs-\n\nThe Corporation of Chennai,\nrep.by its Commissioner,\nRipon Building,\nChennai 600 003                         ..  Respondent\n\n\n        The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\n\nFor petitioner :  M\/s.Sudha Ramalingam \nFor respondent :  Mr.C.Ravichandran\n\n\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of<br \/>\nCertiorarified  Mandamus,  to  call  for  the  records  and  quash  the  order<br \/>\nNo.Po.Thu.NA.KA.E-12\/19623\/99,  dated  4.6.1999,  issued by the respondent and<br \/>\nconsequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on  compassionate<br \/>\nbasis   to  any  post  in  any  section  commensurate  with  the  petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nqualification.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as  well  as  for<br \/>\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioner  that  his  father late<br \/>\nK.Nagappan was employed as a R.C.Driver in  H  Depot,  Zone  VIII,  under  the<br \/>\nrespondent Corporation  and  he  had  died  in  harness  on  20.08.1992.   The<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s mother had predeceased his father on 25.12.1989.  The  petitioner<br \/>\nhad  made a representation to the respondent on 19.03.1999, for appointment on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds, along with all the relevant records.    The  respondent<br \/>\nhad  sent  a  letter to the Tahsildar, MylaporeTriplicane Taluk and sought for<br \/>\nthe &#8216;Family Circumstances Certificate&#8217;.  Inspite of receiving  the  same,  the<br \/>\nrespondent  had  sent  the impugned order No.Po.Thu.NA.KA.E-12\/19623\/99, dated<br \/>\n4.6.1999, rejecting the petitioner&#8217;s name for compassionate appointment on the<br \/>\nground of lapse of three years which was the limitation period.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      It is further stated that the petitioner and his elder  sister<br \/>\none  Kattammal  were  minors  at  the  time  of the death of their parents and<br \/>\ntherefore, they could not  apply  for  appointment  on  compassionate  grounds<br \/>\nimmediately following  the  death of their parents.  It is the further case of<br \/>\nthe petitioner that the Tahsildar Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk had clearly stated<br \/>\nthat no one from the petitioner&#8217;s family was working under the Central or  the<br \/>\nState Government  and  that they were living under penury.  Infact, it was not<br \/>\nuncommon for the  respondent  Corporation  to  keep  the  quota  reserved  for<br \/>\ncompassionate  appointment  vacant  for  several  years after the death of its<br \/>\nemployees to accommodate the children of the deceased employees and to provide<br \/>\nthem with jobs on they attaining majority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits  that<br \/>\nat the  time  of  the  death  of the petitioner&#8217;s father Mr.  K.Nagappan on 20<br \/>\n.08.1992, there was no limitation for an application to be made by the members<br \/>\nof the  deceased  persons  family   for   compassionate   appointment.      In<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.560,  Labour and Employment, dated 03.08.1977, para graph (1) (b) is<br \/>\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8221; In future requests for appointment of dependants of  the  Government<br \/>\nServant who died prior to 15th February 1972, can be considered favourably and<br \/>\nproposals sent to Government in the following type of cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>        At  the  time of consideration of his dependants case for appointment,<br \/>\nthe Government Servant presumptive date of superannuation (i.e.had  he  lived)<br \/>\nshould not  have  been  reached.   In other words, the grant of the concession<br \/>\nwould be considered only upto the presumptive date of  superannuation  of  the<br \/>\nGovernment Servant.  For example, if a Government Servant died in 1965 and the<br \/>\ndate  of  his  superannuation  would have been 1.10.1981 if he were alive, his<br \/>\ndependant can apply for a post on the date prior to 1.10.1981 only&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      However, by letter.No.43242\/NI\/81-9, dated 01st June,1982,  issued  by<br \/>\nthe  Labour  and  Employment  Department,  ,  the Government of Tamil Nadu had<br \/>\nissued a clarification stating that,<br \/>\n        &#8221; The dependants of Government Servants who  die  in  harness  can  be<br \/>\nconsidered  for  appointment  on  compassionate  grounds  irrespective  of the<br \/>\npresumptive date of superannuation of deceased Government Servant&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        Accordingly,  It  is  clear  that  there  was  no  hindrance  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner to  request  for appointment on compassionate grounds.  However, in<br \/>\nthe impugned order of the  respondent  No.Po.Thu.NA.KA.E-12\/19623\/99  ,  dated<br \/>\n4.6.1999,  It  is  stated  that  the  petitioner&#8217;s  request for appointment on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds cannot be accepted, since the elder sister,  though  she<br \/>\nwas  qualified  for  appointment on compassionate grounds, had not applied and<br \/>\nthat there has been a delay of six years in  making  the  application  by  the<br \/>\npetitioner .    Further, it has been stated by the first respondent that there<br \/>\nwas nothing to show, that the family was under an economic  crisis  to  accept<br \/>\nthe petitioner&#8217;s request for appointment on compassionate grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that<br \/>\nthe grounds stated in the impugned order of the respondent, dated 04.06 .1999,<br \/>\nare untenable and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      On  the  other  hand,  the  learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\nstates that the petitioner is claiming appointment  on  compassionate  grounds<br \/>\nbelatedly  and  that there is no vested right in the petitioner to request for<br \/>\nsuch an appointment.  Appointment on compassionate grounds is  meant  only  to<br \/>\nmeet  the emergent crisis arising on the sudden death of the earning member on<br \/>\nbehalf of the family.  He further states that  in  G.O.Ms.No.120,  Labour  and<br \/>\nEmployment  Department,  dated  26.06.1 995, it is specifically mentioned that<br \/>\nthe application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within<br \/>\nthree years of the death of the Government Servant.   Whereas  the  petitioner<br \/>\nhas  made  a  representation  on  19.09.1999,  seeking  for  an appointment on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds on the death of his father late K.Nagappan, who had died<br \/>\non 20.08.1992, and at the time of the death of the  petitioner&#8217;s  father,  his<br \/>\nelder sister one Kattammal was qualified to apply for such an appointment, but<br \/>\nshe had  chosen  not to do so.  Therefore, the respondent had rightly rejected<br \/>\nthe request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by  his<br \/>\norder, dated 04.06.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  states  that  the<br \/>\ncondition found in  G.O.Ms.No.120  Labour  and  Employment  Department,  dated<br \/>\n26.06.1995,  that  the  application  for  appointment on compassionate grounds<br \/>\nshould be made within three years of  the  death  of  the  Government  Servant<br \/>\ncannot  apply to the petitioner, since it can only be prospective in operation<br \/>\nand would not apply to the case of the Government  Servant  who  had  died  in<br \/>\nharness prior  to  the  date  of the Government order.  Further, modifications<br \/>\nissued by the  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  in  G.    O.Ms.No.120  Labour  and<br \/>\nEmployment, dated 26.06.1995, reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; In this connection, the District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabommon District<br \/>\nhas  sought  for  clarifications  whether the time limit of three years period<br \/>\nspecified in the Government Order is  applicable  to  the  dependants  of  the<br \/>\nGovernment  servants  who  died  prior  to the date of issue of the Government<br \/>\norder.  In this connection, it is clarified Government order  first  cited  is<br \/>\napplicable  only  to  the dependants of the Government servants those who died<br \/>\nwhile in service on  or  after  26.06.1995,  and  the  above  orders  are  not<br \/>\napplicable to the past cases.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     In  such  circumstances, it cannot be said that the request of<br \/>\nthe petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is belated,  as  being<br \/>\nmade   beyond  three  years  period  provided  in  G.O.Ms.No.120,  Labour  and<br \/>\nEmployment, dated 26.06.1995.  It is further stated that, in fact,  the  elder<br \/>\nsister  of  the petitioner one Kattammal had made a request for appointment on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds on the death of the  petitioner&#8217;s  mother  Kuppammal  on<br \/>\n25.12.1989.   However,  the  respondent  had not passed any orders on the said<br \/>\nrequest till date either rejecting or accepting the request.   Therefore,  the<br \/>\nreasons  stated  by  the  respondent  in the impugned order, dated 04.06.1999,<br \/>\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the<br \/>\npetitioner and his elder sister both are still living  in  penury  and  having<br \/>\nlost their  parents  at  a  very  young age.  The technical plea raised by the<br \/>\nrespondent in support of the the impugned order, dated 04.06 .1999,  rejecting<br \/>\nthe  request  of  the  petitioner  for appointment on compassionate grounds is<br \/>\ndevoid of merits and it is therefore rejected by this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     Even  though  appointment  on  compassionate  grounds  is   an<br \/>\nexception  to  the  general rule that appointment shall be based only on merit<br \/>\nand  based  on  the  qualifications  prescribed  to  be  eligible   for   such<br \/>\nappointment.   It  is provided with an object to enable the family to get over<br \/>\nthe sudden financial crisis arising due to the  death  of  an  earning  family<br \/>\nmember,  but  not  as  a  source  of  recruitment, it is seen in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the present case that all the conditions  that  prevailed  at<br \/>\nthe  time  of the death of the petitioner&#8217;s parents continued till the date of<br \/>\nthe application made by the petitioner and  even  thereafter.    Further,  the<br \/>\narguments  adduced  in  support of the impugned order of the respondent, dated<br \/>\n04.06.1999, citing G.O.Ms.No.12 0  Labour  and  Employment  Department,  dated<br \/>\n26.06.1995,  cannot  be accepted in view of the fact that the state government<br \/>\norder contemplates of a situation of  the  death  of  the  Government  Servant<br \/>\narising on  or  after  the date of the government order viz.,26.06.1995.  This<br \/>\nposition has been made very clear by the order issued  by  the  Government  of<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu,  clarifying  that  the  said order was not applicable to the past<br \/>\ncases.  It is also to be noted that on the date of death of  the  petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nfather,  who  was  employed  in  the  respondent  corporation,  there  were no<br \/>\nrestrictions with regard to the period to make the request for appointment  on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     In  most  of  the  decided cases, with regard to compassionate<br \/>\nappointment, it is seen that a specific period has been fixed  either  by  the<br \/>\nrules,  standing  orders,  or regulations applicable to the concerned service.<br \/>\nHowever, in the present case, there were no  such  restrictions  shown  to  be<br \/>\nprevailing at the time of the death of the deceased employee.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.     In  these  circumstances, this court is of the considered view<br \/>\nthat the impugned  order  of  the  respondent,  dated  04.06.1999,  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained in  the eye of law.  Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent<br \/>\nNo.Po.Thu.NA.KA.E-12\/19623\/99, dated 4.6.1999, is set aside and the respondent<br \/>\nis directed to consider the request  of  the  petitioner  for  appointment  on<br \/>\ncompassionate   grounds   commensurate   with   his  qualifications  and  pass<br \/>\nappropriate orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of  this<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        With   the   above   directions,   the   writ   petition  is  allowed.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected WPMP is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm <\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Commissioner,<br \/>\nThe Corporation of Chennai,<br \/>\nRipon Buildings,<br \/>\nChennai 600 003 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17\/06\/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN WRIT PETITION No.11984 of 2001 and WPMP.No.32613 of 2004 N.Mariappan &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- The Corporation of Chennai, rep.by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003 .. Respondent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-10T17:31:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-10T17:31:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\",\"name\":\"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-10T17:31:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-10T17:31:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-10T17:31:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006"},"wordCount":1678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006","name":"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-10T17:31:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mariappan-vs-the-corporation-of-chennai-on-17-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Mariappan vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 17 June, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19876","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}