IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.8988 of 2017 and WMP No.9899 of 2017
1. Union of India;
Rep.by the Chief Postmaster General Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Superintendent RMS 'M' Division Egmore, Chennai – 600 002. ...Petitioners vs.
1. A.Annamary Ramya
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal Rep.by its Registrar Madras Bench Chennai - 600 104. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying a writ of certiorari calling for the records of second respondent and quash the order dated 12.04.2016 in OA.No.1942/2014 as the same is unsustainable.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel (SCGSC) For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajendran for R1 R2 - Tribunal
O R D E R
K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.
The claim made by the first respondent for compassionate appointment was negatived by the first petitioner. However, the first petitioner made it clear that the case of the first respondent will be considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee for the vacancies of subsequent years, in accordance with the directions in O.A.Nos.1004 and 1025 of 2012 on the file of the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The said order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal without quashing the order, directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent afresh. The order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioners, primarily on the ground that a direction was given in paragraph 5 of the order to consider the case in accordance with the Scheme which was prevailing as on the date, on which the father of the first respondent died, viz. 30 September 2002.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard the learned counsel for the first respondent.
3. The first respondent submitted application for compassionate appointment. The application was disposed of by the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, within an observation that her case will be considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee for the subsequent vacancies. There was no rejection of the claim made by the first respondent as such. It was only under such circumstances, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent in the next Circle Relaxation Committee against the vacancies of subsequent years. We do not find any error are illegality in the said order warranting interference. In fact, the very same prayer was granted by the Chief Post Master General, and the same is indicated in the impugned order dated 19 August 2014. The statement in paragraph 5 of the order is more in the nature of an observation than a direction given to the petitioners.
4. We direct the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent in the light of the observation made in the order dated 19 August 2014 on the file of the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle.
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
and M.DHANDAPANI,J.
(dna) The writ petition is disposed of with the above clarification. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
dna/gms (K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.DHANDAPANI,J.) 29 June 2017 To The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai - 600 104.
W.P.No.8988 of 2017