Remanded

Gunaseelan v. the Chairman

Madras HC6 Jun 2024WP(MD)/888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment after father's death, dismissed due to minority status. High Court set aside impugned orders, remanding the case for fresh consideration of family's economic status and age relaxations within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to respondents to reconsider application considering family economic status and age relaxation within six weeks.

Gunaseelan Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD). No.888 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 06.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

WP(MD) No.888 of 2022 and WMP(MD) No.725 of 2022

Gunaseelan

... Petitioner

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai 2.

¶11

The Chief Engineer / Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai 2.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, Pudukkottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Ka.No.005518/Nipi/NiMae.1/Vu. 4/Ko.Va.Velai/2021 dated 14.07.2021 and Ka.No.006537 / Nipi / NiMae. 1/Vu.4/Ko.Va.Velai/2021, dated 30.09.2021 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in 1/5

¶14

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

¶15

WP(MD). No.888 of 2022

¶16

consequence thereof direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P. Ganapathi Subramanian

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶21

2 .This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶22

of the 3^rd respondent and direct the respondents to provide appointment

¶23

to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶24

3. The petitioner's father, who was working as a helper in the

¶25

electricity department, met with an accient and died on 01.09.2017. When the application was filed in time for compassionate appointment for the petitioner herein, who is the elder son, the petitioner was a minor. The said application was rejected for the reason that the petitioner was a minor at the time the application was filed.

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

WP(MD). No.888 of 2022

¶29

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the regulation in the respondent guidelines for according appointment on compassionate grounds, there are rules to consider the age of the petitioner by giving necessary relaxation. At the time when the petitioner's father died, the petitioner mother was 36 years, with one son and one daughter, who were aged 15 and 13 years respectively.

¶30

5. It was not stated in the impugned order that the petitioner's family was not in penury at the time when the father died, but was comfortable enough to meet out their livelihood.

¶31

Since the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner only on technicalities without appreciating the holistic grounds on which the compassionate appointment has to be considered, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned orders of the third respondent 14.07.2021 and 30.09.2021 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass orders by taking into consideration all other aspects including the possibility for

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

WP(MD). No.888 of 2022

¶35

according relaxation and the economical status of the petitioner's family.

¶36

Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37

03.06.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶39

¶40

¶41

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai 2.

¶42

The Chief Engineer / Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai 2.

¶43

The Superintending Engineer, Pudukkottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukkottai.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

WP(MD). No.888 of 2022

¶47

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶48

¶49

ORDER IN WP(MD) No. 888 of 2022

¶50

Date : 06.06.2024

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

Gunaseelan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunaseelan v. the Chairman

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

Leelavathi G Vs The District Level Empowered Committee

Periyasamy .K Vs The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

Dhandapani v Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

D.Jane Mercy Arputhamani Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Srinivasagam Vs The District Treasury Officer

Rajeshwaran Vs The Government of Tamilnadu