REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P Veerachamy Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER MADURAI CORPORATION Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

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]
PHOOLWATI 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]
DIRECTOR,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 relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.01.2013 and to grant appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner late.Thiru.Palani was employed in Madurai Corporation and passed away on 10.05.2000. The writ petitioner preferred an application seeking compassionate appointment by way of representation dated 29.01.2013, after 13 years. It is pertinent to note that the grievances of the writ petitioner is that his application was not considered.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent states that the deceased employee passed away on 10.05.2000 and after a lapse of about 13 years, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 29.01.2013. This apart, the learned counsel for the first respondent states that all other legal heirs of Late.Thiru.Palani, who is the deceased employee, are working in Madurai Corporation. This apart, some other persons from the very same family are also employed in Madurai Corporation.

Click here to view full judgment.

P VEERACHAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER MADURAI CORPORATION

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address