Disposed

S.Kokilaani v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Jun 2024WP/28066/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench disposed of a writ petition challenging non-sponsorship for a Village Assistant post. Finding the petitioner over the age limit for the priority group, the court quashed the subject proceedings and granted liberty to approach the Collector for pension benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the 1st respondent for pension benefits within four weeks.

S.Kokilaani Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶7

and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

S.Kokilavani

...Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Erode District.

¶12

The Tahsildar Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.

¶13

The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Erode District.

¶14

S. Palanisamy.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in his proceeding Na.Ka.5023/2010/A2 dated 25.05.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st to 3^rd respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Chellappampalayam Village, Pu.Puliampatti Sub-Taluk, Erode District by giving priority on the basis that land was acquired and unmarried women or in the alternative direct the 3^rd respondent to forthwith sponsor the

¶17

Page No.1/7

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶20

petitioner's name for appointment to any post according to her qualification by giving priority on the basis that land was acquired and unmarried women.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy

¶22

Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 : No appearance for R4

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The proceedings Na.Ka.No.5032/2010/A2 dated 25.05.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent is under challenge.

¶25

The petitioner S. Kokilavani D/o Late Senathipathy Gounder of Varapalayam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District was aged 50 years at the relevant point of time. The petitioner submits that she is an unmarried woman, belonging to Most Backward Class and studied up to 6^th standard. Her father is the absolute owner of the land in Survey No.90/3 & 4 to the extent of 0.47.0 Hectares. The Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravidar Welfare), Sathyamangalam acquired the said land under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 by its award No.5/87 dated 14.12.1987. She further submits that the said land was the only source of income for their entire family. Her father died

¶26

Page No.2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶29

on 09.06.1997 and her father's land was acquired according to G.O.No.188 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 21.12.1976. She should have been given priority while making appointment in the government. She has enrolled her name in the employment exchange on 06.02.2002 and it has been renewed periodically and her Registration Number is W/198/02.

¶30

The petitioner further submits that till now her name has not been sponsored by the third respondent employment exchange by giving priority. In January 2011, one M.Nagammal name was sponsored by the 3^rd respondent and she was given appointment as Village Assistant in Sathi Taluk. Despite her representation, her name was not sponsored. Hence this writ petition.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent (D.E.O) in his counter has stated as follows:

¶32

''4. The Employment Registration particulars of the petitioner are as follows:

¶33

“1.Registration & Validity – ERD2002F00000198 valid upto October 2013.

¶34

2. Qualification & Seniority – Below VIII Std.,

¶35

SF 06.02.2002.

¶36

3. Community – MBC.

¶37

4. Date of Birth – 12.04.1962.

¶38

Page No.3/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶41

5. Whether classified under priority – Yes. Family

¶42

member of land Acquired by Government.

¶43

5. The Tahsildar, Sathy (2^nd Respondent) has notified 15 vacancies of Village menials including 4 reserved for OC priority & 3 reserved for MBC Non Priority. Even though the petitioner has been classified under priority group (Family member of Land Acquired by Government) her name was not sponsored since she was overaged (Crossed 32 years as on 31.01.2012) and there is no upper age concession for this priority Group)”.

¶44

Heard Mr.K.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Veluchamy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 1 to 3.

¶45

No doubt, the Government had acquired the land of the petitioner's father and she comes under the priority group. At the relevant point of time, Tahsildar (2^nd respondent) has notified 15 vacancies of Village menials, of which, 4 reserved for OC priority and 3 reserved for MBC non priority.

¶46

As she was over aged on the relevant date, her name was not

¶47

Page No.4/7

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶50

sponsored by District Employment Office. The date of birth of the petitioner is 12.04.1962. She has registered in the Employment Exchange on 06.02.2002. The age limit for MBC is 32 years and the petitioner comes under the MBC priority. At the relevant point of time, age of the petitioner was 49 years.

¶51

It appears that as per G.O.21, dated 02.02.2000, if a particular person has continuously renewed the registration details before the District Employment Office for every three years, one year relaxation will be given and maximum for 15 years, a person can get age relaxation of 5 years. As per the said Government Order, she gets age relaxation for three years, still as her age was 49 years at the relevant point of time, her name was not sponsored by the District Employment Office.

¶52

Now, the age of the petitioner is 62 years. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the 1^st respondent for availing the benefits of pension, and the petitioner shall present an application to that effect before the 1^st respondent within a period of four weeks from today and the 1^st respondent shall consider her application in accordance with law and dispose of within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of her application.

¶53

Page No.5/7

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶56

With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶57

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶58

03.06.2024

¶59

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶60

mac/ss n

¶61

¶62

The District Collector,

¶63

Erode District.

¶64

The Tahsildar Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.

¶65

The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Erode District.

¶66

Page No.6/7

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.No.28066 of 2012

¶69

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

¶70

mac/ssn

¶71

W.P.No.28066 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012

¶72

03.06.2024

¶73

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

¶74

Page No.7/7

S.Kokilaani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kokilaani v. the District Collector

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.Udayasooriyan Vs The Additional Director

Thiraviyam Vs The Principal Secretary

N.Vadivel Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

K.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Chairman

S.Chakkaravarthy, Vs The Deputy Inspector General

P.Banu Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu