REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

U. Sudhakar Appellant

V/S

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No. 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai And Others 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]
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]
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VS. M SELVANAYAGAM ALIAS KUMARAVELU [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 issued by the second respondent vide proceeding dated 29.06.2011 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner Late. Shri. Uthamanathan was employed as seasonal Watchman by the third respondent on temporary basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the claim for regularization of service of the deceased employee was under consideration. At that point of time, the father of the writ petitioner was passed away on 05.11.2003, while he was in service. The mother of the writ petitioner made an application of compassionate appointment on 03.02.2004 and the same was not considered. However, the first respondent disbursed the benefit of a sum of Rs. 20,744/- due to the father of the petitioner and thereafter a sum of Rs. 4,975/- as gratuity, to the mother of the writ petitioner.

(3.) The claim regarding compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent vide proceeding dated 29.06.2011, stating that the father of the writ petitioner was employed as temporary Watchman and as per the terms and conditions of the scheme of compassionate appointment, the benefits of scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be provided to the legal heirs of the temporary employees.

Click here to view full judgment.

U. SUDHAKAR Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NO. 12, THAMBUSAMY ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI AND OTHERS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address