{"id":223104,"date":"2009-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-14T08:02:31","modified_gmt":"2018-04-14T02:32:31","slug":"m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/12\/2009\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.986 of 2009\n\nM.Syed Sagubar Sathiq\t\t\t\t.... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Principal Chief Engineer\n  Water Resources cum Chief Engineer (Public)\n  Public works Department,\n  Chepauk, Chennai.\n\n2.The Executive Engineer (Public)\n  Building Construction and the Administration\n  Theni District.\n\n3.The Superintendent Engineer\n  Public Work Department\n  Building Construction and\n  Administration No.2\n  Madurai District.\t\t\t\t    .... Respondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the\nrecords relating to the impugned letter No.S.34\/24559\/07 dated 31.12.2008 on the\nfile of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and directing the\nrespondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Assistant or any other\ncompetent post under him on compassionate ground.\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner    ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran\n\t\t       Special Government Pleader\t\t\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tMr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader has taken<br \/>\nnotice for the respondents.  By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is<br \/>\ntaken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tThe petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the<br \/>\nrelief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned letter<br \/>\nNo.S.34\/24559\/07 dated 31.12.2008 on the file of the first respondent and to<br \/>\ndirect the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Assistant or<br \/>\nany other competent post under him on compassionate ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tThe case of the petitioner is that his father was working as a<br \/>\nRecord Clerk under the third respondent herein died on 23.11.1980, while he was<br \/>\nin service.  At that time, the petitioner was eight months old infant.<br \/>\nSubsequently on 04.10.1994, the mother of the petitioner sought for the relief<br \/>\nof appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground by submitting an<br \/>\napplication dated 14.10.1994.  On 08.02.1995, the first respondent sent a letter<br \/>\nto the mother of the petitioner advising her to apply after attaining the age of<br \/>\nmajority of the petitioner.  The petitioner attained the age of majority on<br \/>\n15.06.1998 and preferred a representation, dated 25.07.1998, seeking for the<br \/>\nrelief of compassionate appointment. The third respondent sent the communication<br \/>\non 26.11.1998, to the first respondent recommending the claim of the petitioner<br \/>\nfor appointment on compassionate ground as a Clerk by referring G.O.Ms.No.120<br \/>\ndated 26.06.1995, which provides for the appointment on compassionate ground. As<br \/>\nthere was no further action, the mother of the petitioner sent another<br \/>\nrepresentation on 14.10.2001.  On 08.10.2001, the third respondent requested the<br \/>\nfirst respondent to obtain a suggestion from the Government regarding the<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioner. On 16.10.2001, the second respondent sent a<br \/>\ncommunication to the mother of the petitioner stating that the petitioner would<br \/>\nbe given appointment after getting proper order from the first respondent.  But<br \/>\non 22.08.2003, it was informed by the third respondent that new appointment on<br \/>\nthe basis of compassionate ground was banned by the Government in<br \/>\nG.O.No.212\/p.c.\/dept\/dated 29.11.2001.  On 20.02.2006, the second respondent<br \/>\ninformed the mother of the petitioner that the ban was lifted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tThe Chief Engineer, PWD Department, Chennai sent a letter to the<br \/>\npetitioner asking his consent for appointment to the post as a Typist or Junior<br \/>\nAssistant. On 30.04.2007, the petitioner expressed his consent for such<br \/>\nappointment.  But in spite of all these communications, the first respondent<br \/>\npassed the impugned order dated 31.12.2008, rejecting the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner for the appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the<br \/>\npetitioner has not preferred his application seeking for the appointment within<br \/>\na period of three years from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved against<br \/>\nthe said order, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with<br \/>\nthe aforesaid prayer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tMr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended<br \/>\nthat the petitioner preferred an application well within the period of three<br \/>\nyears after attaining the age of his majority and as such the impugned order is<br \/>\nliable to be quashed.  It is contended that the period of three years is to be<br \/>\nreckoned only from the date of the petitioner attaining majority as the father<br \/>\nof the petitioner died on 23.11.1980 and the petitioner attained the age of<br \/>\nmajority only on 15.06.1998 and the petitioner preferred a representation<br \/>\nimmediately on 25.07.1998.  It is pointed out that even prior to the date of<br \/>\nattaining majority, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application on<br \/>\n14.10.1994, seeking for the relief of compassionate appointment of the<br \/>\npetitioner.  Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is<br \/>\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tHeard Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader on the<br \/>\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  It is submitted<br \/>\nthat the claim of the petitioner was rejected earlier on the ground of ban of<br \/>\nmaking fresh appointments and later by passing the impugned order on the ground<br \/>\nthat the petitioner has not submitted his application within a period of three<br \/>\nyears from the date of death of the deceased viz., the father of the petitioner.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the<br \/>\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tI have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by<br \/>\neither side and also perused the materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.\tThe fact remains that the father of the petitioner was working as a<br \/>\nRecord Clerk in the third respondent and he died while he was in service on<br \/>\n23.11.1980 and at that time, the petitioner was a minor.  It is pertinent to<br \/>\nnote that the mother of the petitioner preferred an application as early as on<br \/>\n14.10.1994 seeking for the relief of appointment of the petitioner on<br \/>\ncompassionate ground.  But the first respondent through his communication dated<br \/>\n08.02.1995, advised the mother of the petitioner to prefer an application after<br \/>\nthe petitioner attaining the age of majority.  It is seen that the petitioner<br \/>\nattained the age of majority on 15.06.1998 and within a period of three years<br \/>\nfrom that date, he has preferred his representation on 25.07.1998 itself<br \/>\nclaiming for the appointment on compassionate ground.  The second respondent<br \/>\nalso recommended to accept the claim of the petitioner as per his communication<br \/>\ndated 25.07.1998 to the third respondent.  Again on 26.11.1998, the third<br \/>\nrespondent sent a letter to the first respondent recommending the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner for appointment as a Clerk on compassionate ground, by referring the<br \/>\nG.O.No.120 dated 26.06.1995, which provides for the appointment on compassionate<br \/>\nground within a period of three years from the date of death of the government<br \/>\nservice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tAs there was no further progress, the mother of the petitioner<br \/>\npreferred yet another representation dated 14.10.2001.  On  16.10.2001, the<br \/>\nsecond respondent sent a communication to the mother of the petitioner stating<br \/>\nthat the claim is under consideration and progress.  But on 22.08.2003, the<br \/>\nthird respondent informed the mother of the petitioner that there was a ban as<br \/>\nper G.O. in G.O.No.212\/p.c.\/dept, dated 29.11.2001 for making fresh<br \/>\nappointments.  Again on 20.02.2006, the second respondent informed the mother of<br \/>\nthe petitioner that such ban was lifted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tThe Chief Engineer, (Building), PWD Department, Chennai, sought for<br \/>\nconsent of the petitioner for appointing the petitioner as Typist or Junior<br \/>\nAssistant and the petitioner consented for the same.  But in spite of all these<br \/>\nsequence of events and communications, the first respondent passed the impugned<br \/>\norder on 31.12.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground<br \/>\nthat the petitioner has not preferred the application within a period of three<br \/>\nyears from the date of the death of his father.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tIt is pertinent to note that the said order is in printed form.<br \/>\nThere is absolutely no reference whatsoever in respect of the previous<br \/>\ncommunication sent by the respondents 1 to 3.  It is seen that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas a minor at the time of the death of his father on 23.11.1980.  It is<br \/>\npertinent to note that the petitioner attained the age of majority on 15.06.1998<br \/>\nand he immediately preferred an application on 25.07.1998 well within the period<br \/>\nof three years from the date of attaining his age of majority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tIn a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that the<br \/>\nperiod of limitation of three years is to be reckoned from the date of attaining<br \/>\nthe age of majority.  It is worthwhile to refer the said decisions as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) 2006 (9) SCC 195 (SYED KHADIM HUSSAIN v. STATE OF BIHAR) in which the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court in a similar matter has held hereunder:-<br \/>\n\t&#8220;The widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and<br \/>\nwithout assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant<br \/>\nsubmitted the application, he was 13 years&#8217; old and the application was rejected<br \/>\nafter a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the<br \/>\nreason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection of the<br \/>\napplication he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well<br \/>\nconsidered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is<br \/>\nno specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are<br \/>\nminors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain<br \/>\nmajority within the prescribed period for submitting application.<br \/>\n\tAs the widow had submitted the application in time, the authorities should<br \/>\nhave considered her application. As eleven years have passed, she would not be<br \/>\nin a position to join the Government service. This is a fit case where the<br \/>\nappellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for<br \/>\nthe State could not point out any other circumstances for which the appellant<br \/>\nwould be dis-entitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of this case, the respondent authorities are directed to<br \/>\nconsider the application of the appellant and give him appropriate appointment<br \/>\nwithin a reasonable time at least within a period of three months.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t (ii) 2009 (4) MLJ 424 <a href=\"\/doc\/1708089\/\">(R.D.RAJESH KANNA v. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING<br \/>\nDIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,)<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t (iii)&#8221;This Court in T.Meer Ismail Ali.T. Vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity<br \/>\nBoard, Chennai reported in 2004 (3) CTC 120 held as follows;<br \/>\n\t&#8220;I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner&#8217;s case deserves<br \/>\nconsideration inasmuch as he had diligently made a claim once in the year 1997<br \/>\nand thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the year 2000 and<br \/>\nin such circumstances, rejection of his application on the ground that it was<br \/>\nnot made within three years was not justified.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv)This Court in another decision in Selvi R.Anbarasi Vs. Chief Engineer<br \/>\n(Personnel), T.N.E.B., Chennai reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J., 2006  held as<br \/>\nfollows;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue,<br \/>\nrejecting the compassionate ground appointment on the ground that the<br \/>\napplication was submitted beyond three years and the same was rejected earlier<br \/>\non the ground that the petitioner therein has not completed 18 years of age, was<br \/>\nconsidered by this Court in W.P.No.1584 of 2001 and this Court held that the<br \/>\napplications having been made within a period of three years and the same having<br \/>\nnot been considered on the ground that the petitioner therein was not 18 years<br \/>\nof age at that time, the subsequent application cannot be rejected on the ground<br \/>\nthat the application was submitted within three years.  The learned Judge<br \/>\ndirected the respondents not to treat the second application as an application<br \/>\nfor compassionate appointment, but it is to be treated as continuation of the<br \/>\napplication originally submitted.  The said judgment is reported in T.Meer<br \/>\nIsmail Ali  Vs.  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Chairman, and others,<br \/>\n(2004) 3 C.T.C. 120.  This Court, ultimately, directed the respondents to give<br \/>\ncompassionate appointment to the petitioner therein.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v)This Court in yet another decision in A.Neppolian Vs. The Chief<br \/>\nEngineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B. Chennai and another reported in MANU\/TN\/9306\/2006<br \/>\nheld as hereunder;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;(c) In W.P.No.8154 of 2002 (A.Govindan v. The Chief Engineer<br \/>\n(Personnel), TNEB, Chennai and Anr.) the Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice N.V.Balasubramaniam,<br \/>\nby order dated 9.4.2002 allowed similar writ petition with a direction to treat<br \/>\nthe application submitted as within the time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(d) The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran by order dated 23.9.2003<br \/>\nin W.P.No.19673 of 2003 (J.Jayakaran v. The Superintending Engineer, Theni<br \/>\nElectricity Distribution Circle, Theni) allowed the writ petition and directed<br \/>\nthe TNEB to pass orders granting compassionate appointment.  Paragraph 5 in the<br \/>\nsaid order reads as under;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;It is true that when an application was made for employment of the<br \/>\npetitioner, i.e., on 23.05.2002, the petitioner was only a minor, but not<br \/>\nqualified.  But he had attained majority on 02.06.2003 and therefore, the<br \/>\nrespondent Board, having kept the application of the petitioner for employment<br \/>\non compassionate ground under consideration, ought to have considered the case<br \/>\nof the petitioner for suitable employment without rejecting the same on<br \/>\ntechnical reason, by the impugned order dated 18.06.2003.  Since B.P.No.146<br \/>\ndated 13.10.1995 prescribes only a maximum period of three years for<br \/>\nconsideration of the application for appointment on compassionate ground, the<br \/>\nrespondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for employment on<br \/>\ncompassionate ground and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of copy of this order, if the petitioner is otherwise qualified<br \/>\nfor suitable post.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi)Lastly a Division Bench of this Court in The Chief Engineer\/Personnel,<br \/>\nT.N.E.B., &amp; another Vs. S.Suder  reported in MANU\/TN\/0635\/2009 was held as<br \/>\nfollows;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;4.In the judgment reported in 2001 Writ L.R. 601 in the case of<br \/>\n&#8220;Ramadoss. D. v. The Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B&#8221;, this Court (D.Murugesan, J)<br \/>\ndirected the consideration of the application made within a period of three<br \/>\nyears after attaining the majority by placing reliance on the very same Circular<br \/>\nin B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Subsequently, in the judgment reported in 2002(4) L.L.N. 1132,<br \/>\n(D.Murugesan, J.), in the case of &#8220;<a href=\"\/doc\/526089\/\">P.Ravi  v. Chief Engineer (P), T.N.E.B.<\/a>&#8220;,<br \/>\nalso, the very same Circular was relied upon and the application for appointment<br \/>\non compassionate grounds was directed to be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.Justice P.D.Dinakaran, has also taken the very same view by following<br \/>\nthe very same Circular dated 13.10.1995, in W.P.No.19673 of 2003, in the order<br \/>\ndated 23.09.2003, in the case of &#8216;J.Jayakaran v. The Superintending Engineer,<br \/>\nTheni Electricity Distribution Circle, Theni&#8221; and the application for<br \/>\nappointment on compassionate grounds was directed to be considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Justice K.Govindarajan has also taken the same view in Writ Petition<br \/>\nNo.13099 of 2003, order dated 30.10.2003, in the case of &#8220;G.Muthamilselvan v.<br \/>\nThe Chief Engineer (Personnel) and Anr.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla has also taken the same view in the<br \/>\ndecision reported in Manu\/TN\/0337\/2004, 2004(3) CTC 120, (2004) 4 MLJ 238 in the<br \/>\ncase of &#8220;<a href=\"\/doc\/1267527\/\">Meer Ismail Ali. T. v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board<\/a>&#8220;.  We are told<br \/>\nthat the order in the said case of &#8220;Meer Ismail Ali&#8221; was confirmed in the Writ<br \/>\nAppeal by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4008 of 2004, by judgment dated 1.12.2004<br \/>\nand as against the said judgment dated 1.12.2004, the Special Leave Petition in<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.6387 of 2005, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, by<br \/>\njudgment dated 4.4.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court in Writ Appeal No.3050 of 2003 in the case of &#8220;Indiraniammal v. The<br \/>\nChief Engineer (Personnel) and Anr.&#8221; and by judgment dated 08.03.2005, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench set aside the impugned order therein in rejecting the request of<br \/>\nthe petitioner therein for appointment on compassionate grounds and directed the<br \/>\nBoard to consider the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.There cannot be a controversy in view of the settled position of law<br \/>\nthat appointment on compassionate ground is not automatic, as it would amount to<br \/>\nback door entry to a post, by-passing the Rules to be followed for such<br \/>\nappointment. Nevertheless, to tide over the financial constraints of a family<br \/>\ndue to sudden demise of the breadwinner of a family, the State Government or its<br \/>\nundertaking or for that purpose, any employer, would be entitled to frame<br \/>\nScheme\/Rules for such appointment by prescribing the conditions as well as the<br \/>\neligibility.  Hence, the request for appointment on compassionate grounds would<br \/>\nbe considered with reference to the Scheme\/Rules or any of the provisions framed<br \/>\nfor the said purpose, either by the Government or by the employers, as the case<br \/>\nmay be.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.In the case on hand, the father of the respondent while he was working<br \/>\nas Wireman in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kazhuvanthilai,<br \/>\nKanyakumari District, died due to illness on 07.03.1998.  At the time of the<br \/>\ndeath of his father, the respondent was 15 years old and for the purpose of<br \/>\nmaking application for appointment on compassionate grounds, he should have<br \/>\ncompleted 18 years.  Hence, he could not make any application for appointment on<br \/>\ncompassionate grounds.  By placing reliance on B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, he<br \/>\nmade application on 3.9.2002, within a period of four days from the date of his<br \/>\nattaining majority, i.e., 18 years.  That application was rejected on the ground<br \/>\nthat the same cannot be entertained as per the Circular in vogue on the date of<br \/>\nthe application.  Presumably, the order of rejection was passed on the basis of<br \/>\nthe Memo, dated 6.4.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.As we have already referred that the application for compassionate<br \/>\nappointment is maintainable by a person within a period of three years after<br \/>\nhe\/she attains the majority, irrespective of the fact that the breadwinner died<br \/>\nwhile such person was a minor in terms of the proceedings of the Board in<br \/>\nB.P.No.46 dated 13.10.1995.  This position is not in dispute.  We may also once<br \/>\nagain refer to the fact that following the very same Board proceedings in<br \/>\nB.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995, consistently, this Court had taken the view that<br \/>\nthe application seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds, has to be<br \/>\nconsidered in the event when such applications are made within a period of three<br \/>\nyears after he\/she attains the majority.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.\tThe principles laid down by this Court and as well as by the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of<br \/>\nthe instant case, as in this case also, the petitioner preferred the application<br \/>\nseeking for the appointment on compassionate ground well within the period of<br \/>\nthree years as the petitioner attained the age of majority on 15.06.1998 and the<br \/>\napplication was submitted on 25.07.1998.  Therefore, this Court is of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.  Accordingly,<br \/>\nthe Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent in<br \/>\nhis letter in S.34\/24559\/07 dated 31.12.2008 is hereby set aside.  Consequently,<br \/>\nthe respondents are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner in respect of any<br \/>\nsuitable post as per his eligibility.  It is made clear that the above said<br \/>\nexercise should be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of a copy of this order.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>RR<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Chief Engineer<br \/>\n  Water Resources cum Chief Engineer (Public)<br \/>\n  Public works Department,<br \/>\n  Chepauk, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Executive Engineer (Public)<br \/>\n  Building Construction and the Administration<br \/>\n  Theni District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Superintendent Engineer<br \/>\n  Public Work Department<br \/>\n  Building Construction and<br \/>\n  Administration No.2<br \/>\n  Madurai District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/12\/2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P.(MD)No.986 of 2009 M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq &#8230;. Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal Chief Engineer Water Resources cum Chief Engineer (Public) Public works Department, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The [&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-223104","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>M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 - 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\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-14T02:32:31+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-14T02:32:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3021,\"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\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\",\"name\":\"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-14T02:32:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 - 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\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-14T02:32:31+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-14T02:32:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009"},"wordCount":3021,"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\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009","name":"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-14T02:32:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-syed-sagubar-sathiq-vs-the-principal-chief-engineer-on-22-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Syed Sagubar Sathiq vs The Principal Chief Engineer on 22 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/223104","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=223104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}