Disposed

Jeyaraj, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC14 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11421/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition filed for a mandatory writ directing the Director, Social Welfare Department, Tamil Nadu, to consider a pending proposal for the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the pending compassionate appointment proposal, hear the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders under the law and rules within two months of the order's

Jeyaraj, Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.07.2015

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11421 of 2015

Jeyaraj

:Petitioner

vs.

1.The Commissioner, Karungulam Panchayat Union, Seydunganallur,

¶11

Tuticorin District.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶13

3.The Director,

¶14

Social Welfare Department,

¶15

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶16

Chintharipettai, Chennai – 2. : Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent toconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and to pass appropriate orders in the proposal of the 2^nd respondent, dated 10.06.2013 for his appointment on compassionate ground by relaxing the Rules within a period that may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Kannan

¶19

For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.Velmurugan For Respondents :Mr.K.Mahesh Raja (R2 and R3)

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The prayer in the Writ Petition is a Writ of Mandamus, praying to direct the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and to pass appropriate orders in the proposal of the 2^nd respondent, dated 10.06.2013 for his appointment on compassionate ground by relaxing the Rules.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground and that the petitioner has made an representation, as early as on 3.8.2009, in this regard. Taking note of the same, on 10.06.2013, a proposal has already been sent to the 3^rd respondent, by the 2^nd respondent, vide communication, dated 19.10.2010 and the 3^rd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will have to take appropriate action, on the proposal forwarded by the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

¶24

Without going into the merits of the matter, since there already a

¶25

proposal pending before the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent, the Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chintharipettai, Chennai, to consider the same and after hearing the petitioner, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and the rules applicable, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

MPK

¶32

¶33

1.The Commissioner, Karungulam Panchayat Union, Seydunganallur,

¶34

Tuticorin District.

¶35

2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶36

3.The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶37

Chintharipettai, Chennai – 2.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.V.Kannan Advocate in SR.No. 38291 +1cc to Mr.R.velmurugan Advocate in SR.No.38788

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.11421 of 2015 Dated:14.07.2015

¶40

Sk/29.07.2015/2p/6c

¶41

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

Jeyaraj, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyaraj, v. the Commissioner

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

K. Saroja, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

The Commissioner of Central Vs M/S.Spic Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

V. Meenakshi Sundaram Vs the Secretary to Government

A.Ninaiva, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

D.Kumar Vs the District Collector

T. Valliammal, Extension Vs the Director of Social Welfare