REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MURUGAN Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PHOOLWATI (SMT.) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF JUSTICE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. L V A DIXITULU:V V S KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
SUSHMA GOSAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ANIL MALIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ANIL MALIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BHAGWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. HAKIM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SECONDARY VS. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
DEFENCE METAL RESEARCH LABORATORY V. G. MURALI [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. MOHAMMAD RAJAODIN [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPN VS. NANAK CHAND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SOMVIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ANJU JAIN [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. MADHUSUDAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RAJKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VS. M SELVANAYAGAM ALIAS KUMARAVELU [REFERRED TO]
MGB GRAMIN BANK VS. CHAKRAWARTI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA UKARDA ATHOR (ATHAWALE) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISIONS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT VS. P. MARIMUTHU [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 08.05.2009, in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment is under challenge.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner stated that the father of the writ petitioner Late Shri. Suruli was employed a Scavenger in Dindigul Municipality and passed away on 16.10.2002, while he was in service.

(3.) The writ petitioner claims that on account of the sudden demise of his father, the family is in indigent circumstances. However, the application seeking companionate appointment was preferred before the competent authority on 12.02009. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was a total ban on appointment of posts by the Government during the relevant point of time. However, the ban imposed by the Government was from the year 2001 to 2006, but the application was preferred on 12.02009, after a lapse of about 3 years from the date of the lifting of the ban on appointment. Even otherwise, the father of the writ petitioner died on 16.10.2002 and no application seeking compassionate appointment was filed in between the period 2002 and 2009. Thus, the reason stated in the impugned order that the application was submitted beyond a period of 3 years, is certainly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme of appointment.

Click here to view full judgment.

MURUGAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address