Disposed

M.Baskar v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC3 Sept 2014WP/12173/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for compassionate appointment. It directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's case within six weeks based on the fifth respondent's recommendation, noting a prolonged inaction.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds within six weeks based on the fifth respondent's recommendation.

M.Baskar Vs the Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.12173 of 2014

¶6

M.Baskar .. Petitioner

¶7

..vs.. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chenni – 9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Educational Officer, District Collectorate Complex, Salem. 4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, District Collectorate Complex, Salem – 1. 5.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational officer, Attur Region, Attur, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable job on compassionate ground based on the proposal submitted by the fifth respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.40/Aa2/2014 dated 27.01.2014.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner's father died on 17.1.2000 leaving behind his widow and two sons and the petitioner is the second son of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased M.P.Muthusamy. He sent a representation on 18.12.2000

¶12

seeking compassionate appointment furnishing all the particulars and the fifth respondent recommended the petitioner's case to the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 11.01.2001. The fifth respondent by his proceedings dated 27.06.2001 also recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and followed by another letter dated 10.09.2001. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer called for certain particulars by proceedings dated 19.12.2001 and after furnishing the particulars, the fifth respondent recommended the case of the petitioner by his proceedings dated 01.03.2002 and that was also followed by proceedings of the fifth respondent dated nil.07.2002. The fourth respondent by proceedings dated 16.3.2009 asked for certain clarifications and that was also answered and the fifth respondent by his proceedings dated 27.01.2014 recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the fourth respondent and even thereafter, no order has been passed. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶13

Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the fourth respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a time frame.

¶14

As stated supra, the fifth respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground from 2001 onwards and under one pretext or the other, the proposal was returned with certain clarifications and all the queries were answered by the petitioner as well as fifth respondent and the fifth respondent has also re-submitted the proposal to the fourth respondent. But, unfortunately, no action has been taken by the fourth respondent in the case of the petitioner.

¶15

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the fourth respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the fifth respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(T&P) Dated: 10.09.2014

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

asvm

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chenni – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The District Educational Officer,
District Collectorate Complex,
Salem.
4.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
District Collectorate Complex,
Salem – 1.
5.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational officer,
Attur Region,
Attur, Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Advocate 41423
+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 41543
SCD(CO)
km/11.9.
W.P.No.12173 of 2014

¶24

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

M.Baskar v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Baskar v. the Principal Secretary to

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

V.Nanda Kumar, D.E.E.E., B.E., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

D.Arumugam Vs Vikram Kapoor I.A.S

G.Jagadesan, Mazdoor (Trainee) Vs the State of Tamilnadu

V.Manickam Vs State of Tamilnadu

A.Saminathan Vs State of Tamilnadu

D.Manickam Vs State of Tamilnadu