REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

S.Pavithra Appellant

V/S

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PHOOLWATI (SMT.) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [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]
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]
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]
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]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SHASHI KUMAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection, dated 25.11.2014 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The father of the writ petitioner Shri.P.Subramanian was working as Junior Assistant in Agriculture Department and died on 20.09.2006 while he was in service. The writ petitioner during the relevant point of time was a minor. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application on 26.12.2007 seeking appointment to the second daughter of the deceased employee and it is stated that the application is to be considered for appointment. Even in the application dated 26.12.2007 the mother of the writ petitioner has categorically stated that the first daughter of the deceased employee got married and the second daughter (writ petitioner) was studying 5th standard and therefore, the second daughter is to be provided with an appointment after attaining the majority. The said request was considered by the authorities and it was rejected on 25.11.2014 stating that on the date of application, the writ petitioner was aged about 9 years and was a minor, thus, the application cannot be considered at all.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that during the year 2013, the writ petitioner helself submitted an application. Even at that point of time, it was not made clear whether the writ petitioner is entitled for scheme of compassionate appointment or not. Even otherwise also, the second application submitted by the writ petitioner cannot be entertained as the said application was submitted after a lapse of 3 years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

Click here to view full judgment.

S.PAVITHRA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address