REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

G.Adhiparasakthi Appellant

V/S

STATE 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]
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]
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]
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VS. M SELVANAYAGAM ALIAS KUMARAVELU [REFERRED TO]
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISIONS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT VS. P. MARIMUTHU [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection dated 14.08.2015 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The mother of the writ petitioner Late. Smt.A.Dhanalakshmi, was employed as Secondary Grade Teacher at Municipal Elementary School in Salem Town and died on 07.01.1994 while she was in service. Soon after the death of the mother of the writ petitioner, the father was sanctioned with the Family Pension. However, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that two of the brothers of the writ petitioner are practicing Advocates and the father of the writ petitioner was receiving family pension and under these circumstances, it was ascertain that the family of the writ petitioner was not in indigenous circumstances.

(3.) Thus, the application submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that the family was having sufficient sources of income for maintenance and accordingly, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme appointment cannot be provided.

Click here to view full judgment.

G.ADHIPARASAKTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address