Dismissed

Kumar.a v. the Commissioner

Madras HC20 Oct 2023WP(MD)/1659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for compassionate appointment after his father, a corporation employee, died in harness. The court observed the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the appointment application was filed within the statutory three-year period from the date of death.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected due to failure to prove timely application.

Kumar.a Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.1659 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1659 of 2022

A.Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai – 02.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai - 02. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide any suitable employment to the petitioner under compassionate ground, according to the educational qualification of the petitioner within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balamurugan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Kannan Standing Counsel

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.1659 of 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus to provide compassionate appointment for the writ petitioner in view of the death of the father of the writ petitioner, who died in harness on 08.02.2008.

¶20

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner's father was working as a Sweeper in the respondent Corporation and while he was in service, he passed away on 08.02.2008.

¶21

3. As per the writ averments, the petitioner has made an application within a period of three years seeking compassionate appointment. It is further contended that on 09.11.2012, a letter was addressed by the respondent Corporation seeking certain documents from the writ petitioner and immediately, those documents were also placed before the authorities by way of a letter addressed dated 31.12.2021. Since there was no response from the authorities, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.1659 of 2022

¶25

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that they have not received any application from the writ petitioner either within three years or after three years seeking compassionate appointment. For the first time, the respondent Corporation received such an application only on 31.12.2021. He further disputes the genuineness of letter said to have been issued by the Corporation on 09.11.2012. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the application has been belatedly filed after a period of 13 years and hence, they are not in a position to consider the said application.

¶26

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶27

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was working as Sweeper in the respondent Corporation. He passed away on 08.02.2008. The petitioner solely relies upon the letter said to have been sent by the respondent Corporation on 09.11.2012, to contend that he had made an application well within a period of three years.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.1659 of 2022

¶31

7. The genuineness of the said letter has been questioned by the

¶32

respondent Corporation in their counter. Even assuming that the said letter is a genuine one, there is no reference about the date on which the writ petitioner had made an application seeking compassionate appointment.

¶33

8. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not able to prove that he had made an application seeking compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the date of death of his father.

¶34

9. In view of the above said facts, the petitioner has not made out the

¶35

case for issuance of mandamus and this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There

¶36

shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

20.10.2023

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.1659 of 2022

¶42

¶43

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai – 02.

¶44

The Deputy Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai -02.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.1659 of 2022

¶48

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶49

ebsi

¶50

W.P(MD)No.1659 of 2022

¶51

20.10.2023

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Kumar.a v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar.a v. the Commissioner

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

Thavas Pandeeswari.P Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Malar Chelvan Vs The Managing Director

Ramar.S Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Dr.Anbazhagan.R Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Vasudevan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Rajathilagam Vs The State Rep by