Dismissed

Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Roshin R Mohan

Kerala HC24 Sept 2010OP (CAT)/45/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting compassionate employment to a widower who had previously under-disclosed his mother's income. The court found no suppression of material facts warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

O.P.(CAT) No.45 of 2010 is dismissed; the Tribunal's order upholding the compassionate employment claim is affirmed.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932

¶6

OP (CAT).No. 45 of 2010(S)

¶7

-------------------------OA.161/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

PETITIONERS

¶9

¶10

INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶11

DIRECTOR, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDULU, KASARAGOD.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

SHRI.ROSHIN R MOHAN, S/O.LATE SHRI K.K.RAJAMOHAN, 786, FATHIMA COTTAGE, ERIYAL, P.O.KUDULU, KASARAGOD DIST.

¶16

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM BENCH, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017.

¶17

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶19

O.P.(CAT) No.45 of 2010

¶20

.................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶23

Heard counsel for the petitioners. On going through the order impugned which is the order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the claim of entitlement of the first respondent for employment under compassionate grounds and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any scope for interference with the C.A.T's. order because the main ground on which petitioners declined compassionate employment to first respondent who is otherwise eligible is that he did not disclose the paltry income obtained by his widowed mother in the employment as Aya in an Anganwadi which is a menial job fetching very paltry income for first respondent's mother. The Tribunal found that there is no suppression of any material fact as alleged by the petitioners warranting denial of employment under the compassionate scheme to the first respondent.

¶24

¶25

We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. Consequently O.P.(CAT) is dismissed.

¶26

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶27

K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶28

pms

Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Roshin R Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Roshin R Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Raveendran Pillai, Sreevalsam Vs the Commr. of Incometax

Asst.Supdt.of Post Offices Vs Geethakumar C

The Commissioner of Income Tax Cochin Vs M/S. United Catalysts India Ltd. Edayar

The Union of India, Rep.by Director Vs Damodaran Nair

K.Balan Nambiar Vs State of Kerala

V.Vikraman @ Vikraman Nair Vs State of Kerala