Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR
K. Padmavathi – Appellant
Versus
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J
1. The order of rejection dated 13.02.2014, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The reason for rejection of appointment on compassionate ground was that, the petitioner crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years as contemplated under the scheme of compassionate appointment in G.O.Ms.No.134 Labour and Employment (Q-1) Department, dated 22.10.1998.
3. The fact remains that the writ petitioner's deceased brother died on 27.04.2013, while he was in service in the Judicial Department. The petitioner submitted an application on 18.12.2013 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be instituted.
4. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, she is entitled for relaxation of age limit by 5 years as per the Service Rules. Thus, the order of rejection in unsustainable.
5. In support of the said contention, Mr.S.N.Ravichandran relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the ca
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as an absolute right and should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme.
Eligibility for compassionate appointment depends on the age criteria specified in organizational policies; exceeding this age limit disqualifies the candidate regardless of other qualifications.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
