LAWS(MAD)-2002-2-159

G. VANAMATHI Vs. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU LEATHER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU UNDERTAKING), MADRAS

Decided On February 21, 2002
G. Vanamathi Appellant
V/S
The Chairman -Cum -Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Leather Development Corporation Limited, (A Government Of Tamil Nadu Undertaking), Madras Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, directing the respondents to call for the records relating to proceedings No.Roc.1943/P and A2/94 dated 30.09.1994 and 15.11.194 and quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is a widow of a one C. Gunasekarn, workman before the respondent. He joined the respondent as Record Clerk on 18.04.1974. Subsequently, he was promoted during the year 1980. The said Gunasekarn, husband of the petitioner died on 23.02.1994, when he was working as a Junior Assistant - Store Keeper. After his death, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's husband had left four children. The first son is studying Civil Engineering in a Polytechnic at Tirupattur, second son is studying Mechanical Engineering and the last son and daughters are studying +1 and 9th standard respectively. None of them were employed. On 26.3.1994, the petitioner made a representation through the union requesting an appointment on Compassionate grounds which was rejected by the respondent on the ground that there are already excess employees in the corporation and the petitioner also exceeded the age of 40 which was the upper age limit in the respondent Corporation. Again on 26.10.1994, the petitioner made a representation that to reconsider the earlier order, that was also rejected without any reason. Aggrieved against that order of the respondent, the petitioner came forward to file the above writ petition.

(3.) From the writ petition, it is seen that the impugned order are two in number. One is dated 13.9.1994 and another is dated 15.11.1994. In the order dated 13.09.1994, the claim for appointment for the wife has been rejected. In the order dated 15.11.1994, the claim for appointment of the petitioner or her son was rejected.