Madras High Court
G.Arokia Selvi vs The Chairman/Managing Director on 5 March, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
and W.M.P.(MD).No.4373 of 2018
G.Arokia Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman/Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
No.12, Thambusamy Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
2.The Deputy Collector / Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai Region, Madurai,
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent,
O/o. The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai Region, Madurai,
Madurai District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order in Na.Ka.A.E.9/7585/2017, dated 09.06.2017 on the file
of the respondent No.1 and the consequential impugned order in
Na.Ka.No.E2/9280/2012, dated 12.06.2017 on the file of the respondent No.2
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to
provide appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable regular post to
the petitioner, within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis
For Respondents : Mr.P.Seetharaman
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondents.
2.The petitioner herein is the widow of one D.Ganesan, who was an
employee on a temporary basis under the respondent corporation and had died n
02.12.2012. The petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was
rejected on the ground that her husband was only an temporary employee at the
time of his death and therefore, appointment on compassionate basis is
impermissible.
3.The petitioner herein had challenged the rejection order before this
Court in W.P.(MD).No.11064 of 2015 and thereafter in the appeal in W.A.
(MD).No.279 of 2017, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, through its
order, dated 04.04.2017, had directed the respondents herein, to consider the
petitioner's case by taking a sympathetic approach in the following manner.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
“However, we have considered the plight of the
appellant/writ petitioner, who is an young widow with
two minor children and she is in indigent
circumstances and therefore, this is a fit case, where
the respondents should be directed to consider the
candidature of the appellant for being appointed in
some class IV Post, falling within the jurisdiction of
the first respondent.
Accordingly, while dismissing the Writ Appeal,
we direct the appellant to submit her representation
along with a copy of this Judgment, for appointment
in any class IV Post and if any such reported2006 is
submitted by the appellant/Writ petitioner, the first
respondent is directed to consider the same in a
sympathetic manner, taking note of the fact that the
appellant is an young widow in indigent
circumstances, with two minor children. The
representation shall be considered within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of the same. No
costs.”
4.In this background, when the petitioner had made a representation to
the respondents seeking for compassionate appointment on sympathetic
grounds, the impugned orders dated 19.06.2017 and 12.06.2017 came to be
passed by the respondents herein, by assigning the same reasons, which was
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
originally adduced that the petitioner's husband was only a temporary employee
and therefore, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
5.It is needless to point out that the subsequent representation was made
by the petitioner, pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Division Bench
of this Court, which had specifically directed the respondents to take a
sympathetic view and considered the petitioner's request. On the contrary, the
respondent corporation had chosen to cite the very same reason assigned in
their original order of rejection, dated 14.01.2015, which was put to challenge
in the subsequent proceedings and ultimately, the order in the writ appeal came
to be passed the very order of rejection is contrary to the directions issued by
the Honourable Division Bench and therefore, cannot be sustained.
6.In the light of the above observations, the impugned order in
Na.Ka.A.E.9/7585/2017, dated 09.06.2017 on the file of the respondent No.1
and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.E2/9280/2012, dated
12.06.2017 on the file of the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside and matter is
remanded back to the respondents herein. The respondent shall consider the
representation given by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks, in the
light of the orders passed by the Honourable Division Bench in the writ appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
7.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.03.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
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.
To
1.The Chairman/Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
No.12, Thambusamy Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
2.The Deputy Collector / Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai Region, Madurai,
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent,
O/o. The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai Region, Madurai,
Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
M.S.RAMESH,J.
TM
W.P.(MD).No.4240 of 2018
05.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
