G.TAMILARASI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed two writ petitions;

(2.) The petitioner's husband Late T.Ganesan was initially appointed as Driver in the National Institute of Port Management on a consolidated salary of Rs.1000/- per month on 14.10.1989. After some time, he was absorbed permanently. However, during employment, the petitioner's husband died on 21.10.2014 leaving behind the petitioner and two children and they were staying in the official quarters. Therefore, after the demise of her husband, she made a representation dated 21.11.2014 requesting the second respondent University to retain the quarters for some time on humanitarian grounds. Accepting such request, the second respondent, vide letter dated 18.12.2014, permitted her to retain the quarters initially on a rent of Rs.250/- per month for 4 months and thereafter at a market rent of Rs.5064/- per month. Again, after expiry of four months, she made another representation dated 03.03.2015 to the second respondent University requesting to continue in the quarters till the alternative arrangements made. However, the second respondent University, by way of passing the present impugned order, directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters on the ground that the service conditions of the erstwhile National Maritime Academy (NMA) and Section 49(ii) of the Indian Maritime University (NMU) Act do not permit to stay in the IMU quarters beyond four months. Aggrieved by the impugned order, when the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.19049 of 2015, this Court, by admitting the writ petition, granted interim order of stay against the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate the official quarters on 29.06.2015. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, she has been residing over there with her two children.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent directing to vacate the quarters is arbitrary, especially when they have not even disposed of the representation dated 09.12.2014 of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to her son-G.Chanakiyan. It is further submitted that as per the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.1 to 2012, dated 10.10.2014 directing the University to give employment on compassionate ground in terms of the Central Government Rules to those who have applied for the same on the demise of employee, the second respondent University ought to have given appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner's son, who has studied B.E. (EEE) and has fulfilled all the parameters in terms of the Central Government Rules. However, the direction of the second respondent, without giving appointment on compassionate ground by disposing of her application, to vacate the staff quarters, is unjust and unfair, he pleaded. It is further submitted that although the petitioner's son has completed B.E. (EEE) in the year 2012, he is ready to work in any post, therefore, the second respondent University need not unnecessarily delay the process in considering the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.