Madras HC judge directed to reconsider woman’s plea dispassionately
DECCAN CHRONICLE
Chennai: Coming to the rescue of a woman denied compassionate appointment on the ground that her deceased husband was only an ad hoc/temporary employee, the Madras high court has directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (PDSJ), Erode, to consider her representation afresh in a dispassionate manner by taking into account the present social, financial status and other relevant requirements.
Disposing of a petition from M, Fathima, a Division Bench comprising Justices Satish K. Agnihotri and M. Venugopal also set aside the order of PDSJ dated November 24, 2015, rejecting her application for compassionate appointment.
According to petitioner, she belonged to Islam and her husband S. Thangadurai was a Hindu scheduled caste and they were married on December 4, 2001. They have two children.
Her husband joined the judicial department on May 26, 2010, and died on November 1, 2013, due to jaundice while in service. Her aged father was a
tailor and he was getting only a meagre income. She had no other source. She had studied up to class 12 and also has a diploma in co-operative management and diploma in computer application.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Venugopal said the term ‘compassionate’ means a deep feeling of pity for the suffering of another and an inclination to render assistance either to shower mercy or to support. The object of compassionate appointment was to render social justice.
The bench said taking note of a primordial fact that the petitioner’s husband entered into service on May 31, 2010, and expired on November 1, 2013, and also notwithstanding the fact that he was reportedly unauthorisedly absent (for 14 times) for more than one year, yet, the court was of the considered view that his appointment as temporary night watchman was against a regular post of night watchman in a clear vacancy (his name being sponsored by the district employment exchange, Erode). It cannot be termed ad hoc or temporary one in the strict sense of the term notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner husband’s services were not regularised on account of pending disciplinary proceedings.
Chennai: Coming to the rescue of a woman denied compassionate appointment on the ground that her deceased husband was only an ad hoc/temporary employee, the Madras high court has directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (PDSJ), Erode, to consider her representation afresh in a dispassionate manner by taking into account the present social, financial status and other relevant requirements.
Disposing of a petition from M, Fathima, a Division Bench comprising Justices Satish K. Agnihotri and M. Venugopal also set aside the order of PDSJ dated November 24, 2015, rejecting her application for compassionate appointment.
According to petitioner, she belonged to Islam and her husband S. Thangadurai was a Hindu scheduled caste and they were married on December 4, 2001. They have two children.
Her husband joined the judicial department on May 26, 2010, and died on November 1, 2013, due to jaundice while in service. Her aged father was a
tailor and he was getting only a meagre income. She had no other source. She had studied up to class 12 and also has a diploma in co-operative management and diploma in computer application.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Venugopal said the term ‘compassionate’ means a deep feeling of pity for the suffering of another and an inclination to render assistance either to shower mercy or to support. The object of compassionate appointment was to render social justice.
The bench said taking note of a primordial fact that the petitioner’s husband entered into service on May 31, 2010, and expired on November 1, 2013, and also notwithstanding the fact that he was reportedly unauthorisedly absent (for 14 times) for more than one year, yet, the court was of the considered view that his appointment as temporary night watchman was against a regular post of night watchman in a clear vacancy (his name being sponsored by the district employment exchange, Erode). It cannot be termed ad hoc or temporary one in the strict sense of the term notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner husband’s services were not regularised on account of pending disciplinary proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment