P. VELUMANI Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-215
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 26,2019

P. VELUMANI Appellant
VERSUS
The Superintending Engineer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J. - (1.) The Appellant had filed W.P. No. 7949 of 2015 before this Court challenging the letter Ka. No. 59/NiPi1/ENiVu/12 dated 29.08.2012 rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment on the death of her husband K.C. Palanisamy on 19.11.1990 on the ground that the office of the First Respondent had not received any application from her in that regard immediately after the demise of the deceased employee.
(2.) The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, on a perusal of the materials placed on record, noticed that the Appellant had made an application for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her husband as seen from the letter dated 10.04.1991 sent by the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode, requiring her to produce documents for such claim, but on perusal of the Legal Heirship certificate dated 14.12.1990 issued by the Tahsildar, Gopichettipalayam, found that the deceased employee, viz., K.C. Palanisamy was already married to one Angammal, who later died on 07.08.2005 and as such, the Appellant cannot be recognized as the legally wedded wife of that deceased employee. Taking into consideration the legal principles governing the grant of compassionate appointment in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, aggrieved by which the Appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal.
(3.) We have heard Mr. C. Deivasigamani, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P.R. Dhilipkumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged that the Appellant cannot be denied compassionate appointment on the ground that she is the second wife of the deceased employee and in support of that claim, he relied on the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, apart from the Legal Heirship Certificate of the said K.C. Palanisamy dated 14.12.1990 issued by the Tahsildar, Gopichettipalayam, which specifically mentions the Appellant to be his legal heir.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.