Allowed

union of India rep.by v. K.Pandiselvam

Madras HC10 Apr 2017WP/6598/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that allowed a compassionate appointment claim application without quashing the impugned order or providing an opportunity to the petitioners to reply, leading to directions for restoration and remand on merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27 April 2016 set aside; original application restored to file with direction to file reply within three weeks; Tribunal to dispose on merits within three months.

union of India rep.by Vs K.Pandiselvam — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.04.2017

¶3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

¶4

W.P. No.6598 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.7078 of 2017

¶5

Union of India rep. by The Director (Staff) Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3. Senior Superintendent, RMS "MA" Division, Madurai-625 001. 4. Head Record Officer, RMS "MA" Division, Madurai-625 001. ...Petitioners Vs.

¶6

K.Pandiselvam, S/o (Late) A.Karuppiah, No.17A, Sivan Street II, Sellur, Madurai-625 002 2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep.by its Registrar, Madras Bench Chennai-600 104.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ of Certiorari calling for the

¶9

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

¶10

records of 2^nd Respondent and quash the Order dated 27.04.2016 in O.A.No.310/00819/2015.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr. V.P.Sengottuvel, SCGSC For R1 : Mr. R.Malaichamy For R2 : Tribunal

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

¶14

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27 April 2016 in O.A.No.819 of 2015 allowing the original application filed by the first respondent without quashing the order impugned in the said original application.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶16

The first respondent filed original application in O.A.No.819 of 2015 before the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, to quash the order dated 28 August 2014 on the file of the Chief Post Master General, Anna Salai, rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment.

¶17

The Central Administrative Tribunal, without even giving an opportunity to the petitioners to file reply statement, allowed the original application by following the judgment of the Supreme Court. While allowing the original application, the Tribunal failed to quash the order impugned in the original application and directed the petitioners to consider the matter afresh on the basis of the then existing Regulations. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition.

¶18

The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not contain any material suggesting that merits of the matter has been considered before directing the petitioners to consider the matter afresh. In fact, the order impugned in the original application remained as it is. There is no question of considering the case of the first respondent once again, unless and until the order impugned in the original application is quashed. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in directing the petitioners to consider the matter afresh.

¶19

In the result, the order dated 27 April 2016 is set aside. The original application in O.A.No.819 of 2015 is restored to file. The petitioners are directed to file their reply statement within a period of three weeks. The Tribunal is directed to take up the original application and dispose of the

¶20

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

¶21

same on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

This writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench
Chennai-600 104.
+1 CC to Mr. V.P. Sengottuvelu, sr 21306
+1 CC to Mr. R. Malaisamy, sr 21428
W.P. No. 6598 of 2017
VGI(CO)
sp/24/4

¶24

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

union of India rep.by v. K.Pandiselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

union of India rep.by v. K.Pandiselvam

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

M.Prakash Vs The Sub Collector

K.Jayaprakash Vs The District Collector

K.Gunasekaran, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Rajkumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Thimma Reddi Vs the Tamilnadu State Level

V.Sankaran, Vs The Sub- Collector