REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

P.MARIMUTHU Appellant

V/S

CHIEF ENGINEER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PHOOLWATI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT V. M.SELVANAYAGAM [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]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BHAGWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. M V KAPITAN KUD [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]
A UMARANI VS. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPN VS. NANAK CHAND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [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]
J S YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [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 14.12.2004 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The reasons stated in the impugned order is that the application seeking compassionate appointment has filed by the writ petitioner even before attaining the age of majority. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for public employment.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner was employed as Foreman Grade II in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and passed away on 01.06.1996 due to heart attack. On account of the sudden demise of the father of the writ petitioner, the family was in penurious circumstances, and was not in a position to meet out the day-to-day expenditures of the family. The writ petitioner, during the relevant point of time, was a minor and therefore, his application was rejected. However, on attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment and the said application has not been considered and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

Click here to view full judgment.

P.MARIMUTHU Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address