A FELIX RAJAMANICKAM Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-636
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 22,2018
A Felix Rajamanickam
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LAXMIBEN MANUBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER [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]
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 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
S.M.Subramaniam, J. -
(1.)The order of rejection issued by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 14.02.2014 in relation to the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.)The impugned order states that the deceased employee Late.Shri.M.Arulanandam was employed on daily wage basis and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late.Shri.M.Arulanandam was employed as daily rated employee to perform electrical works in the electrical pole near Thamaraithotti, K.Pudur, Madurai. On account of electrocution, the deceased employee passed away. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that already an Industrial Dispute was raised in I.D.No.403 of 1989 by the Employees' Union and an award was passed on 17.01.1990. However, the award was published in the Government Gazette on 111.1992. Unfortunately, the deceased employee passed away one month prior to the publication of award on 17.10.1992.
(2.)The impugned order states that the deceased employee Late.Shri.M.Arulanandam was employed on daily wage basis and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late.Shri.M.Arulanandam was employed as daily rated employee to perform electrical works in the electrical pole near Thamaraithotti, K.Pudur, Madurai. On account of electrocution, the deceased employee passed away. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that already an Industrial Dispute was raised in I.D.No.403 of 1989 by the Employees' Union and an award was passed on 17.01.1990. However, the award was published in the Government Gazette on 111.1992. Unfortunately, the deceased employee passed away one month prior to the publication of award on 17.10.1992.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.