Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4014 (MAD)

R. Geetha v. Union Of India

2016-11-23

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, V.PARTHIBAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Huluvadi. Ramesh, J. The husband of the appellant died in harness and as per the policy of the respondent Corporation, on the exercise of option by the appellant, the 2ndnd son of the appellant was provided with compassionate employment. While the 2ndnd son of the appellant was working as such, his brother, viz., the 1stst son of the appellant died. As the younger brother and sister of the 2ndnd son of the appellant were suffering from cerebral palsy and since there being no one to take care of the disabled persons and the appellant also being of old age, without understanding the repercussions, the 2ndnd son of the appellant resigned from service and his resignation was accepted. However, later realising the difficulties in running the day to day affairs of the household, representation was submitted for reconsidering the case of the appellant's son for appointment with continuity of service, which request was rejected. Hence, left with no alternative, the appellant preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge against which the present appeal is filed. 2. Heard the appellant, who appeared as party-in-person and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant's son had voluntarily left the job offered to him on compassionate appointment. The reason offered by the appellant's son for leaving the job is that his younger brother and sister, who are suffering with physical disability, needs constant care and attention in person and, therefore, to attend to their needs, the appellant's son had resigned the job. However, the appellant feels the difficulty monetarily after the resignation of her son and pleads that his continuance in the job with the respondent Corporation is of utmost importance for taking care of the entire family and, therefore, pleads that the respondent Corporation may be pleased to consider the representation submitted for continuance of her son in employment of the respondent Corporation. 4. Be that as it may. After hearing the party-in-person and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, this Court suggested to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation that the respondent Corporation may consider the case of the appellant's son, who was previously employed with the respondent Corporation, sympathetically for re-employment, if he is otherwise not disqualified. After hearing the party-in-person and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, this Court suggested to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation that the respondent Corporation may consider the case of the appellant's son, who was previously employed with the respondent Corporation, sympathetically for re-employment, if he is otherwise not disqualified. Though it was brought to the notice of this Court that there is inordinate delay in filing the petition, and though this Court is not inclined to issue a mandamus, however, this Court is of the opinion that taking into consideration the overall circumstances and the fact of unblemished record of service of the appellant's husband, the respondent Corporation may, as a special case, consider the representation of the appellant for re-employment of her son, without counting the period of service already put in by the appellant's son as fresh candidate taking into account the critical position pleaded by the appellant in the affidavit and also the service rendered by the appellant's husband in the respondent Corporation. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.