REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K.Karthick Appellant

V/S

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 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]
DEFENCE METAL RESEARCH LABORATORY VS. 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]
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 21.4.2012 and the subsequent rejection order dated 16.2.2016 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner, late Shri Krishnamoorthy, was employed as Senior Helper in the fourth respondent-Office and died on 4.6.1992, while he was in service. On account of the sudden demise of the father of the writ petitioner, the family of the writ petitioner was in penurious circumstances.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the first application was submitted by the mother of the writ petitioner on 25.2.1995 within the period of three years as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the Scheme of compassionate appointment. However, the said application was not considered on the ground that the mother of the writ petitioner was not qualified for appointment.

Click here to view full judgment.

K.KARTHICK Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address