SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 2358

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
Superintending Coimbatore – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Anand Venkatesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Dileep Kumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :-

1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this Court.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioner's husband was working as Serang Grade II in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he died on 19.8.2012 while he was in service. He left behind the petitioner and her two daughters, namely Revathi and Jayashree as legal heirs. He has no son. Both daughters were married when he died.

4. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for her second daughter Jayashree on 17.12.2012 along with necessary Certificates, as the petitioner is an illiterate and she is also 41 years. Since her second daughter has assured her that she would take care of the petitioner after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner requested for compassionate appointment to her second daughter.

5. But, her request was rejected by the impugned order dated 25.2.2013 by the respondent. The only reason given in the impugned order is that her daughter Jayashree was married at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner and therefore she was not eligible to grant compassionate appointm



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top