Disposed

Bhuvaneshwari v. The Managing Director

Madras HC4 Dec 2024WP/24522/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the delay in seeking compassionate appointment for the daughter of a deceased TANGEDCO employee, noting the initial rejection was due to her minority. The Court directed the respondents to consider her representation and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; respondents directed to consider representation and pass orders within two months.

Bhuvaneshwari Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.24522 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.No.24522 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.23479 of 2022

Bhuvaneshwari

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Managing Director, TANGEDCO,

¶11

No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶12

2.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Centre, Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in Letter No.073/Nir.1/U3/Ko Va Ve/2022 dated 30.07.2022 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post commensurate with her qualification.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Srimathi

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramaniam

¶16

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

Page 1 of 5

W.P.No.24522 of 2022

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for quashment of the order of the 2^nd respondent in Letter No.073/Nir.1/U3/Ko Va Ve/2022 dated 30.07.2022 and further, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post commensurate with her qualification.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that her father namely, Subramaniam, was working as line inspector in the respondents Department and while in service, he died on 22.03.2017, leaving behind his wife and the petitioner, who is his daughter, as legal representatives. The mother of the petitioner had sought employment for her and she was informed that the petitioner was a minor and could try on attainment of majority. The petitioner after completing her studies on 02.07.2021 and renewed the request with the respondents. The petitioner has produced all the records as required by the respondents including No Objection Certificate from her mother and all the records were acknowledged by the Board. On 20.11.2021, the petitioner was informed by the second respondent

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

W.P.No.24522 of 2022

¶26

that steps would be duly taken for consideration of her appointment on compassionate grounds. All of a sudden, the petitioner has received the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 without reference to the earlier proceeding dated 20.11.2021, stating that her claim was rejected on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the demise of her father, the mother of the petitioner made a request before the respondents within the prescribed period of three years and the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a minor. After attaining majority, the petitioner made a representation and the same was also rejected on the ground of limitation. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner be appointed to any post on compassionate grounds.

¶28

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

¶29

that the respondents had rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner had made a request for employment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased father beyond the prescribed time limit. Hence, he prayed the writ petition be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

W.P.No.24522 of 2022

¶33

In view of the submissions made and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The delay in moving the claim for compassionate appointment is hereby condoned by this Court.

¶34

7. With the above observations and discussions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

04.12.2024

¶36

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No vkr

¶37

¶38

1.The Managing Director, TANGEDCO, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶39

2.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Villupuram Electricity Distribution Centre, Villupuram District.

¶40

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

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

W.P.No.24522 of 2022

¶43

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH. J,

¶44

vkr

¶45

W.P.No.24522 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.23479 of 2022

¶46

04.12.2024

¶47

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

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Bhuvaneshwari v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvaneshwari v. The Managing Director

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

P.Dharageshwaran Vs Union of India

G.Murugan Vs The Director general of Police

Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Vs the National Medical Commission

R.Sangeetha Vs The District Collector

K.Kamalakannan Vs the Director

V.Beaulah Diamond Vs The Chief Educational officer