Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1058 (MAD)

M. Mahendran v. Joint Registrar of Coop. Societies, Dindigul

2015-02-23

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.7887/2006, Vae.Sae.Sa, dated 27.02.2007 and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground for the post of Attender or any other suitable posts in any other Societies, which are under the control of the first respondent Society. 2. According to the petitioner, his father died on 12.01.1997 while he was working as Night Watchman in the third respondent Society. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was studying XII Standard. He subsequently obtained Diploma in Co-operation. After obtaining the necessary qualification, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground, either in the third respondent Society or in any other Society. 3. The third respondent appointed the petitioner as Attender on 27.02.1999 after passing necessary resolution. Subsequently, the third respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 31.12.2001 to the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated. While so, the second respondent by his communication in Na.Ka.3776/2002 Vae.Sae.Sa, dated 13.08.2002, returned the proposal to the third respondent to furnish the details mentioned therein. The second respondent instructed the third respondent to send a proposal for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in any of the Society, if no vacancy exists in the third respondent Society. The third respondent did not send any proposal thereafter. On the other hand, the first respondent, after four years, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1769/2006/Vae.Sae.Sa(1), dated 26.04.2006, retrenched the petitioner by paying Rs.8,436/- in lieu of notice. The second respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7887/06 Vae.Sae.Sa, dated 27.02.2007, rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. The respondents did not consider whether there exists any vacancy in any of the Society and whether the petitioner could be appointed in any other Society on compassionate ground. The order of the respondents 1 and 2, dated 26.04.2006 and 27.02.2007 are contrary to the instructions given by the second respondent, on 13.08.2002. Further, the third respondent gave a show cause notice, dated 31.12.2001, calling upon the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he was appointed without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Further, the third respondent gave a show cause notice, dated 31.12.2001, calling upon the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he was appointed without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. While so, by the impugned order, dated 27.02.2007, the third respondent retrenched the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was excess staff. 5. The respondents did not explore the possibilities of appointing the petitioner in any other Society, where vacancy is available. 6. Though the writ petition is of the year 2010, the respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter affidavit and despite service of notice, the third respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through pleader. 7. Therefore, without deciding the issue on merits, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the third respondent is directed to explore the possibility of the petitioner being appointed in any other Society and send a proposal to the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of representation. On receipt of such proposal from the third respondent, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law taking into consideration the proceedings dated 13.08.2002 within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is closed.