Allowed

K.Malarmozhi v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC28 Sept 2016WP/34123/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed for consideration of a representation seeking compassionate appointment, the High Court of Madras directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application within six weeks and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.7.2016 for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

K.Malarmozhi Vs The Inspector General of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.34123 of 2016

¶6

K.Malarmozhi ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Commercial
Taxes and Registration Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.7.2016 to provide employment to her on compassionate ground. For Petitioner :Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan For Respondents :Mr.S.Gunasekaran Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER

¶8

By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶9

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for a mandamus, directing the first respondent consider her representation dated 19.7.2016 to provide employment to her on compassionate grounds.

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that her father K.M.Kumar was an employee of the registration department for two decades. While he was employed as Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai, on deputation to Purasaiwalkam, he died on 12.11.2008, leaving behind his wife, the petitioner and her younger sister. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation dated

¶11

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

¶12

15.9.2011 to the first respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. On receipt of the same, the first respondent, by communication dated 20.6.2012, informed that since the petitioner has not completed 18 years of age, she could not be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. After completion of 18 years, again she made a representation dated 8.12.2015 and the same was also not considered on the very same ground. Thereafter, she made a further representation dated 19.7.2016 to the first respondent seeking compassionate appointment. But, the same was also not considered. Hence, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.7.2016, to provide employment on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Principal Secretary to
State of Tamil Nadu
Government, Commercial
Taxes and Registration Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
+1cc to Mr.YogeshKannadasan, Advocate Sr.55881

¶16

W.P.No.34123 of 2016 tm[co] srg 06/10/2016

¶17

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

K.Malarmozhi v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Malarmozhi v. The Inspector General of

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.Arunachalam, Vs The Accountant General

R.Prabhakaran, Vs the Commissioner and Director

S.Kalaiselvi Vs Mrs.D.Sabitha IAS

S.Bhuvaneswari Vs The District Collector

S.Krishnan, Vs The Joint Registrar of

J.Srinivasan, Vs The Chairman