REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

R.Karthick Appellant

V/S

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU 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 the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.02.2017 and to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

(2.) Even the relief sought for to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner cannot be granted in the absence of establishing any legal right by the writ petitioner. It is a pre-condition for entertaining the writ petition that the person who is approaching the Court of law must establish a legal right.

(3.) This being the principles to be followed, let us now consider the facts in nutshell. The father of the writ petitioner Late Ramasundaram was employed as Mechanic in the respondent Corporation and passed away on 21.06.2001, while he was in service. On account of the sudden demise of the father of the writ petitioner, the family was under penurious circumstances and they were unable to earn their livelihood. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, however, the said application was not processed on account of the fact that another person claiming to be the wife of the deceased Government employee filed a civil suit in O.S.No.660 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. During the pendency of the civil suit, the mother of the writ petitioner was unable to submit any further application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The suit was dismissed subsequently in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner and thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted another application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

Click here to view full judgment.

R.KARTHICK Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address