THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN W.P. No. 5087 of 2017 and WMP No.5361 of 2017
1. Union of India rep.by The Chief Postmaster General Tamil Nadu Circle Chennai 600 002.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Chennai City Central Division Chennai 600 017. ...Petitioners Vs
1. T.Suresh
2. Central Administrative Tribunal Rep. by its Registrar Madras Bench Chennai 600 104. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of 2nd respondent and quash the order dated 18.04.2016 in O.A.No.310/00698/2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajendran, for R1 O R D E R K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18 April 2016 in O.A.No.310/00698/2016, whereby and whereunder, the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the candidature of the first respondent for compassionate appointment and pass a speaking order within a period of three months.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that without giving reasonable opportunity to file counter affidavit, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has not quashed the order impugned in the Original Application and as such, the order under challenge is liable to be quashed.
3. We have also heard the learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. The first respondent challenged the order dated 01 September 2015 before the Tribunal in O.A.No.310/00698/2016. The Tribunal was expected to consider the legality and correctness of the said order before directing the Department to consider the matter afresh. In the subject case, the Tribunal, without quashing the impugned order dated 01 September 2015, directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for compassionate appointment. Such a course is not permissible in view of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to file reply statement. The Tribunal was also expected to decide as to whether the petitioners were correct in rejecting the request made by the first respondent for compassionate appointment. Since such a course was not adopted by the Tribunal, we are inclined to set aside the order.
5. In the result, the order dated 18 April 2016 is set aside. The application in O.A.No.310/00698/2016 is restored to file. The petitioners are given four weeks time to file reply statement. The Central Administrative Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Original Application as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.) 01 June 2017
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gms To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104.
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
& M.V. MURALIDARAN.J gms W.P. No. 5087 of 2017
01.06.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in