Allowed

The Managing Director v. J. Lidwin Jeyanthirani

Madras HC15 Apr 2021WA(MD)/268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a lower court order that granted compassionate appointment to a petitioner. The High Court held that compassionate appointment is not a recruitment source and requires strict adherence to eligibility criteria. Rejecting the request due to failure to meet qualifications, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower order.

What did the court decide?

WRIT APPEAL ALLOWED, ORDER DATED 29.06.2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.694 OF 2020 SET ASIDE, NO COSTS.

The Managing Director Vs J. Lidwin Jeyanthirani — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.268 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

The Managing Director

¶7

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

¶8

Madurai Division Bye-Pass Road Madurai-16

¶9

... Appellant/Respondent

¶10

-vs-

¶11

J.Edwin Jeyanthirani ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶12

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 29.06.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.694 of 2020, on the file of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD). 694 of 2020 :

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order in Madurai /Sattam/15252/2018 dated 04.07.2019 passed by the sole respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional.

¶15

This writ appeal by the Transport Corporation is directed against the order, dated 29.06.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.694 of 2020.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.A.(MD) No.268 of 2021

¶19

2. The respondent / writ petitioner sought for compassionate appointment as her husband died in harness. The application was rejected by order dated 04.07.2019 on the ground that it has been submitted beyond the stipulated period of three years. The said order was put to challenge in the said writ petition and it was allowed.

¶20

3. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant – Transport Corporation, compassionate appointment cannot be a source of recruitment and it can be granted only if the applicant fulfills the eligibility criteria mentioned in various Government Orders and Resolutions / Regulations framed by the appellant – Transport Corporation. Hence, the learned Single Bench was not right in allowing the writ petition. Though we can express our sympathy for the respondent / writ petitioner and her family, we cannot issue any order for grant of compassionate appointment to the respondent / writ petitioner as she does not fulfil the eligibility criteria.

¶21

4. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 29.06.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.694 of 2020, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

krk

¶25

Note :

¶26

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the Judgment may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the Judgment that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶27

¶28

The Managing Director,

¶29

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division,Bye-Pass Road,Madurai-16

¶30

W.A.(MD) No.268 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD) No.873 of 2021 15.04.2021

¶31

mj(CO)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TR(05.05.2021) 2P 2C

¶33

2/2

The Managing Director v. J. Lidwin Jeyanthirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. J. Lidwin Jeyanthirani

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.Dhanalakshmi, Vs the District Collector / Inspector of Panchayat

Alagappan Vs the District Collector

Bharathidasan, Vs Karur Sri Ramakrishna Educational and Charitable Trust

A.Chandrasekaran, Vs the District Collector

Sri Manavala Mamunigal Trust Vs the Commissioner

Shanmugavalli.P Vs The Accountant General (a and E)