Disposed

P.Vairavan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC4 Jan 2018WP(MD)/10184/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court Bench directed the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, to serve the petitioner with the order rejecting his claim for appointment as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. Consequently, the Writ Petition is closed without granting the specific relief sought in the prayer.

What did the court decide?

The First Respondent directed to serve the order of rejection dated 25.01.2007 to the Writ Petitioner within four weeks.

P.Vairavan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:04.01.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No. 10184 of 2013

P.Vairavan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

represented by its Secretary to Government,

¶10

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,

¶11

Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam,

¶13

Chennai-600 108.

¶14

3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶15

4.The Secretary,

¶16

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omanathoorar Government Estate,

¶17

Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate ground in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.206, Municipal Administration and Water Supply(Town Panchayats-1)Department, dated 2.11.1995 after getting necessary concurrence from the Fourth Respondent herein with all consequential benefits.

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s.C.Godwin

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj 1 to 4 Spl. Government Pleader

¶21

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the first respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grounds in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.206, Municipal Administration and Water Supply(Town Panchayats-1) Department, dated 2.11.1995 after getting necessary concurrence

¶22

¶23

from the Fourth Respondent, with all consequential benefits.

¶24

2.The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Writ Petitioner was already appointed as Office Assistant. He was originally possessing +2 qualification and after getting graduation, the Writ Petitioner is of the opinion that he should be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant.

¶25

3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would brought to the notice of this Court that the Writ Petitioner's father Mr.Pitchai had worked as Sanitary Supervisor in Thirupuvanam Special Grade Town Panchayat and he passed away on 21.6.2005, while he was in service. Subsequently, the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Office Assistant. This apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Executive Officer of the Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa.1/415/2006, dated 25.01.2007, had rejected the claim of the writ Petitioner stating that the Petitioner was entitled for appointment only in non-provincialised post.

¶26

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the said order of rejection had not been served to the Petitioner. However, this Court is unable to ascertain whether it was communicated during the relevant point of time to the Petitioner or not. However, the respondents are directed to serve a copy of the order of rejection, dated dated 25.1.2007 to the Writ Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition stands closed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶33

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.

¶34

2.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam,

¶35

Chennai-600 108.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The District Collector,

¶37

Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶38

¶39

4.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omanathoorar Government Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. +1cc to Mr.C.GODWIN,Advocate,SR. 40222 +1cc to Mr.K.K.SENTHIL,Advocate,SR. 40467 +1cc to M/S.Special Government Pleader,SR. 40521

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.10184 of 2013 04.01.2018

¶41

VSN KK/SV MMS/SAR 2/22.01.2018/ 3P- 8C/

¶42

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

P.Vairavan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vairavan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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.Ganesh Kumar Vs the Director

Sukumaran Vs the District Collector

M.Amutha, Vs the Joint Registrar of

P. Tamilselvi Vs the Joint Director of

I.Hariharasuthan, Vs the Director of School -

S.Devaki Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by