Dismissed

Jansi Jothi Vatsala Bai v. Union of India rep.l by

Madras HC3 Jul 2015WP/19593/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to condone a 554-day delay in a compassionate appointment application. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting the petitioner had twice rejected prior appointment offers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Jansi Jothi Vatsala Bai Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶7

W.P.No.19593 of 2015

¶8

Jansi Jothi Vatsala Bai ...Petitioner -Vs1.Union of India rep. By The General Manager Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai-600 003 2.The Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai-600 003 3.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Palghat Division, Southern Railway Palghat, Kerala 4.The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104 ..Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 4^th respondent in Miscellaneous Application No.895 of 2014 in unnumbered Original Application dated 01.04.2015, to quash the same and further direct the 4^th respondent to condone the delay of 554 days and consequently number the Original Application and to take the same on file to decide the original Application on merits.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.A.Abdul Ajeez O R D E R

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶12

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the refusal of the Central Administrative Tribunal to condone the delay in filing an application seeking compassionate appointment.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard Mr.A.Abdul Ajeez, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner's husband died in harness on 10.07.1997. He was employed at that time in Podhanur. When the petitioner made a representation for compassionate appointment, she was offered appointment in Palghat Division. But she wanted a posting in or around Arakkonam. But the said request was turned down.

¶16

The petitioner again made a request. When she was offered a job for a second time, she expressed inability to take up the job in the year 2002. But she wanted her son's case to be considered for appointment. But the request was again turned down.

¶17

Challenging the order of rejection, the petitioner came up with an application with a delay of 554 days. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay.

¶18

In our opinion, the Tribunal was right. The petitioner has turned down the offer that was made twice, first in 1997 and then in 2002. The very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has been defeated by the petitioner by her own conduct. Therefore, she does not deserve any indulgence. Hence dismissal of her application is just and proper. Therefore, we dismiss the Writ Petition too. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar nvsri To

¶20

1.The General Manager, Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai-600 003

¶21

2.The Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway Park Town, Chennai-600 003

¶22

3.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Palghat Division, Southern Railway Palghat, Kerala.

¶23

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

¶24

4.The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104.

¶25

1 cc to Mr.R.Pandian , Advocate Sr.No.33711

¶26

1 cc to Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar , Advocate Sr.No.33283

¶27

W.P.No.19593 of 2015

¶28

rsi(co) pmk.15.7.2015

¶29

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

Jansi Jothi Vatsala Bai v. Union of India rep.l by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jansi Jothi Vatsala Bai v. Union of India rep.l by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Kasturi, Vs Union of India

P.Abdullah Vs Aynsh Manishdiwari

The Managing Director Vs S. Saravanan

K.Bharathi Vs K.Kotteswaran

M/S.Royal Sundaram Aliance Ins Vs M.Chithra

Bajaj Allianz General Insuranc Vs M. Vijaya