Disposed

M.Nirmala v. Union of India

Madras HC6 Apr 2023WP/2632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent to consider a compensation claim arising from the death of her husband. The court held the petition was not appropriate against the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to work out remedies against the third respondent in the appropriate forum; Writ Petition disposed of.

M.Nirmala Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2632 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.2632 of 2022

M.Nirmala

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶11

2.Seaman Master, Welfare Officer, Shipping Office, Government of India, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

¶12

3.Supreme Marine Tankers Pvt. Ltd., IIIrd Floor, West Block, Door No.7/8/22, R.K.Mission Road, Walter Ward, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.2632 of 2022

¶18

consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.08.2021 and received by them on 11.08.2021 within a time frame.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Hariharan For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Gunasekar For R3 : No Appearance

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr.J.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

Mr.K.Gunasekar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. There is no appearance on behalf of the third respondent.

¶23

In connection with the death of the petitioner's husband, who was employed with the third respondent, the petitioner has sought for compensation from the third respondent and since her representation was not considered by them, she had made a representation to the second respondent, who is the shipping office of the Government of India. The second respondent had in turn forwarded the representation dated 07.08.2021 to the third respondent herein.

¶24

2/4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.2632 of 2022

¶27

In case the petitioner is entitled for any compensation for the death

¶28

of her husband, it would be the third respondent, who has to pay such compensation. Thus, the present Writ Petition, which seeks for a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claim, may not be appropriate.

¶29

In this background, the petitioner is granted liberty to work out her

¶30

remedies, with regard to her claim for compensation in connection with the death of her husband, against the third respondent herein, before the appropriate forum/Civil Court.

¶31

With the above liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶32

costs.

¶33

06.04.2023

¶34

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No hvk

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/4

W.P.No.2632 of 2022

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶42

2.Seaman Master, Welfare Officer, Shipping Office, Government of India, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

¶43

3.Supreme Marine Tankers Pvt. Ltd., IIIrd Floor, West Block, Door No.7/8/22, R.K.Mission Road, Walter Ward, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶44

W.P.No.2632 of 2022

¶45

06.04.2023

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

4/4

M.Nirmala v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Nirmala v. Union of India

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.Selvaraj Vs The Sub Registrar

S.P.Kamaraj Vs The District Collector

V.Karuppasamy Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

Tamilselvi Vs The commissioner

P.Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector

Rani Vs The District Collector