Disposed

The Union of India v. M.Sampath Kumar

Madras HC3 Jul 2018WP/9484/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order. The Court directed the petitioner authorities to reconsider the applicant's candidature for compassionate appointment based on the scheme existing at the relevant time, citing Canara Bank v. M.Mahesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to reconsider candidature for compassionate appointment per the scheme existing at the time of application within three months

The Union of India Vs M.Sampath Kumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.07.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.9484 of 2017 and WMP.No.10433 of 2017

¶7

The Union of India rep. by The Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶8

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore-641 001.

¶9

The Manager,
Mail Motor Service,
Coimbatore-641 001. ... Petitioners
Vs
1. Sampath Kumar
2. Central Administrative Tribunal
rep. by its Registrar,
Madras Bench, Chennai-104. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent and quash the order dated 03.06.2016 in O.A.No.745/2016 as the same is unsustainable.

¶11

For Petitioner :: Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel

¶12

For 1^st Respondent :: Mr.P.Tamilavel

¶13

R2 : Tribunal

¶14

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Challenging the correctness of the order passed in

¶15

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

¶16

O.A.No.745/2016 dated 3.6.2016, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the unsuccessful respondents have preferred the present Writ Petition.

¶17

The Original Application was filed challenging the order dated 16/21.09.2015 passed by the 3^rd respondent therein and to set aside the same and also for further direction to consider the applicant's candidature for grant of compassionate appointment. The Tribunal, by its order dated 03.06.2016 disposed of the said Original Application. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents/petitioners are before this Court with this Writ Petition.

¶18

The Writ Petition is listed today under the caption, ''for admission''.

¶19

Heard the learned Counsel on either side and we have also perused the materials carefully available on record.

¶20

At the outset, it is pertinent to extract paragraph 5 of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal here under :

¶21

''5. Be that as it may, in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that without going into the substantive merit of the matter, this OA could be disposed of by issuing the following direction:

¶22

''The respondent authority shall reconsider the candidature of the applicant for compassionate appointment in the light of the then existed scheme which prevailed as on the date of the death of the father of the applicant and pass suitable order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the applicant.''

¶23

As per the view taken by the Tribunal, the petitioners herein would have considered the candidature of the 1^st respondent for compassionate appointment in the light of the then existed scheme which prevailed as on the date of the death of the father of the 1^st respondent herein and passed suitable order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. But, without considering the said aspect simple rejecting the claim of the 1^st respondent is frivolous and unsustainable on the part of the petitioners herein.

¶24

Therefore, now it is well open to the petitioner authorities to once again consider the case of the 1^st respondent/applicant for compassionate appointment, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in its judgement in

¶25

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

¶26

Canara Bank and another v. M.Mahesh Kumar, reported in CDJ 2015 SC 467, which provides that compassionate appointment has to be granted as per the scheme which was in vogue at the relevant point of time when the application was made for compassionate appointment. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶27

With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
1. The Chief Post Master General,
Union of India,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Coimbatore Division,
Coimbatore-641 001.
3. The Manager,
Mail Motor Service,
Coimbatore-641 001.
4.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai-600 104
+1cc to Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate, S.R.No.42575
+1cc to Mr.P.Tamilavel, Advocate, S.R.No.42878
W.P.No.9484/2017

¶29

PA(CO) GSP(20/07/2018)

¶30

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

The Union of India v. M.Sampath Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. M.Sampath Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Venkatasubramanian Vs The General Manager

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Dr.P.Kirubakaran

T.P.Jayachandran Vs The Tahsildar

The Chairman Vs Sri Seethalakshmi Steel

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs v. Dhanasekaran

The Director of School Vs M.Satish Kumar