Madras High Court
R.Vijayarani vs The General Manager ... on 15 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
R.Vijayarani ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The General Manager (Admministration)
Office of the Managing Director,
Head Office,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Chennai - 10.
2.The Senior Regional manager (in charge)
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Sachidanandam Moopanar Road,
Thanjavur. ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 14.02.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.9498 of 2012 on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Seetharaman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
JUDGMENT
************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/writ petitioner and Mr.P.Seetharaman, learned Counsel appearing for
the respondents.
2.This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2018,
passed in W.P(MD) No. 9498 of 2012, filed by the writ petitioner, praying for
quashing the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 08.07.2011, and for a
consequential direction to appoint the appellant/writ petitioner on
compassionate ground, on account of demise of her husband namely,
S.Rajaguru, who was working as a Helper.
3.Admittedly, the appellant’s husband was only a seasonal worker and
though his service appears to have been recommended for regularization, no
order of regularization has been passed and the appellant’s husband died. The
scheme notified by the respondent Corporation for granting appointment on
Compassionate ground does not cover such category of cases. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
request of the appellant was rightly rejected and rightly confirmed by the
learned writ Court.
4.However, after hearing Mr.V.Karthikeyan learned counsel for the
appellant / writ petitioner, we find that the family of the appellant is undergoing
tough times. The appellant’s husband died, leaving behind the appellant and
two minor daughters as his legal heirs. It appears that the elder daughter is
married and she also lost her husband and she is a widow with a small baby.
The second daughter appears to be pursuing her college education.
5.In these circumstances, this Court would recommend to the
respondent Corporation to consider the case of the appellant, especially, the
present family circumstances and if feasible to offer contract employment either
to the appellant or to anyone of her daughter. This observation may be taken as
a direction, however, not to be treated as a precedent.
6.The appellant is directed to give a representation to the said effect
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
and the respondent Corporation shall consider the same within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the representation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
7.Thus, while confirming the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, we dispose of the writ appeal, with the above observation / direction. No
costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
15.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
RM
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.905 of 2018
15.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
