Partly allowed

R.Pravin Raj, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC18 Feb 2015WP/568/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Transport Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment. The court mandated disposal of the matter on merits within three months, taking into account any prior proofs of earlier applications.

What did the court decide?

Directive to second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2014 on merits within three months.

R.Pravin Raj, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.568 of 2015

¶6

R.Pravin Raj ...Petitioner
Vs
1 State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Department of State Transport Corporation
Secretariat
Chennai-9.
2 The Managing Director
State Express Transport Corporation
No.2, Thiruvalluvar House
Pallavan Salai, Chennai- 2. ...Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2014 and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in any appropriate job within a stipulated period.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Jagasundaribalamurugan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh, AGP for R1

¶10

Mr.P.Paramasivadoss for R2

¶11

The petitioner is the legal representative of Thiru K.Raman, who worked as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The father of the petitioner died in 2003. The petitioner submitted an

¶12

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

¶13

application for compassionate appointment on 14.05.2013. Since there was no follow up action taken by the respondents, another representation was given on 11.11.2013. Finally, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.10.2014, requesting the second respondent to consider his request for compassionate appointment. However, there was no follow up action taken by the second respondent, resulting in filing this Writ Petition.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Corporation submitted that the representation dated 14.05.2013 is not available and as such the Corporation is not in a position to comment on the said representation.

¶15

The question as to whether the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment is an issue to be decided by the second respondent in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Transport Corporation.

¶16

The second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 10.10.2014 on merits and as per law. In case the petitioner is in a position to prove that he has made an application on 14.5.2003, the said application also should be taken into account while deciding the matter. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ajr To 1 The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Department of State Transport Corporation Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶18

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

¶19

2 The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation No.2, Thiruvalluvar House Pallavan Salai, Chennai- 2.

¶20

1 CC to Mr.L.Jagasundari Balamurugan, Advocate SR.No. 8839

¶21

1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 9165

¶22

W.P.No.568 of 2015
KU (CO)
PSI (05.03.2015)

¶23

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

R.Pravin Raj, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Pravin Raj, v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

S.Ramasamy Vs The Director of Animal

D.Roselin Joyce, Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies

S.Alexraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Johnbosco Vs the Chief Engineer

M.Hemavathi Vs The Commissioner

Tmt.R.Prasannadevi, Vs The Director of School