Disposed

S. Saranan, v. the Director of School

Madras HC5 Sept 2011WP(MD)/9934/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Director of School Education to pass orders on pending compassionate employment proposals within eight weeks and the District Elementary Education Officer to submit necessary materials expeditiously to facilitate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the compassionate employment proposal within eight weeks and the third respondent to provide necessary materials expeditiously.

S. Saranan, Vs the Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05/09/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

Writ Petition (MD)No.9934 of 2011

¶5

S.Saravanan ...Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The Director of school Education,

¶8

DPI Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam Road,

¶9

Chennai – 06.

¶10

2.The District Education Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶11

3.The District Elementary Education Officer,

¶12

Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶13

4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,

¶14

Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to provide employment to the petitioner within the stipulated period fixed by this Court considering the third respondent's proposals forwarded to the first respondent's office vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1130/A1/2010 dated 17.05.2010 recommending the first respondent to provide employment to the petitioner under the compassionate ground.

¶17

For petitioner ...Mr.S.M.Ananthamurugan

¶18

For respondents ...Mr.S.Chandrasekar

¶19

Government Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Seeking for a mandamus directing the Director of School Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein, to provide employment assistance to the petitioner, by considering the proposal of the District Elementary Educational officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District, the third respondent herein, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that his father, who was working as a Teacher in Therkankulam village Panchayat Board Primary School, Therkkankulam, Tuticorin District, died on 16.09.1989 leaving behind his wife, three female and six male children. Thereafter, family pension has been received by the mother of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother also died. Earlier, within three years from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date of the petitioner's father's death, the petitioner's elder brother, Mr.Sankar, made a representation seeking employment assistance on compassionate grounds. Though, necessary details were produced by the

¶23

¶24

petitioner's brother, as sought for by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Alvarthirunakari, he was not provided with employment assistance and therefore, the petitioner preferred a representation to the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, to consider his brother's case for employment assistance.

¶25

It is the further case of the petitioner that though the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, vide proceeding in O.Mu.No.486/A1/1997, dated 29.01.1997, directed the District Educational Officer, Tuticorin, to consider the case of the petitioner's brother, it was not done. Subsequently, there was a ban in filling up the post by direct recruitment and on compassionate grounds. In such circumstances, the petitioner's brother was not provided with any appointment. Subsequently, the ban order has been lifted by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 19.09.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the Director of School Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein, who in turn, has directed the respondents 2 and 3 to make an enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, vide proceeding in Rc.No.1130/A1/2010 dated 17.05.2010 has forwarded the proposal to the first respondent to provide employment assistance to the petitioner. Despite the proposal being pending for consideration, no orders have been passed and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the relief stated supra.

¶26

In addition to the above, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has brought to the notice of this Court that the District Educational Officer, in-charge, Tuticorin, in his proceeding in Rc.No.1130/A1/2010 dated 29.07.2011, sent a letter to the Joint Director, (Personnel), and sought for appropriate orders, on the proposals sent for employment assistance to the petitioner.

¶27

Considering the averments and grievance expressed by the writ petitioner, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Government Advocate, was put on notice. He submitted that the proposals stated supra would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed and in this regard, prayed for eight weeks time. His submission is placed on record.

¶28

Having regard to the pleadings and the proposals of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, dated 17.05.2010, forwarded to the Director of School Education, the first respondent herein and also the proceeding dated 29.07.2011 sent to the Joint Director (Personnel), Chennai, and having regard to the scheme of employment assistance to the dependant of the deceased Government servant, intended to tide over the financial constraint, this Court is of the view that there should not be any delay in considering the proposals and a decision has to be taken one way or the other, at the earliest.

¶29

In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be provided with employment on compassionate grounds, as per the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, this Court deems it fit to issue a direction to the Director of School Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein, or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any other competent authority to pass orders on the abovesaid proposals within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The

¶30

¶31

District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, the third respondent herein, is also directed to place all the necessary materials to the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible, so as to enable the competent authority to pass orders within the time frame.

¶32

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar (W)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Director of school Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Nungambakkam Road, Chennai – 06. 2.The District Education Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. 4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. RR GH : 20.09.2011 : 3p/5c

¶40

Writ Petition No.9934 of 2011

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S. Saranan, v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Saranan, v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.N.Mythili Vs the Director

K.Karuppaiah Vs the District Manager

N. Chitrasenan, Vs the District Collector

Pudukottai Civil Supplies Vs the Managing Director

Navaneethakrishnan Vs the Block Development Officer

M.Ajmal Hussain Vs the Director of Technical