1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P(MD)No.3392 of 2011 S.Rajkamal .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division IV) Limited, Bye-Pass Road,Collectorate Post, Dindigul – 4,Dindigul District. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai – 16. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, Transport Department, dated 08.01.1986 within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan For Respondents : Mr.S.Baskaran O R D E R The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for the relief of directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, Transport Department, dated 08.01.1986 within a reasonable time. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, namely, P.Sathiamoorthy, joined as conductor on 01.09.1986 under the respondent's Corporation and after having worked for thirteen years, the bus driven by him, met with an accident on 05.10.1999 and as a result, he sustained head injury. A case was registered under Sections 275 and 337 I.P.C. in Crime No.375 of 1999 by Nagamalai Police Station. Due to head injury, the father of the petitioner has to take medical leave. The Medical Board examined the father of the petitioner and gave an opinion and on that basis, the father of the petitioner was discharged on medical grounds on 19.07.2002. The father of the petitioner also applied for alternative employment as per the rules of the Corporation. But the same was not considered. The father of the petitioner ultimately died on 14.02.2006. 3. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the petitioner on 08.02.2007 and again the petitioner made a representation on 19.11.2008. But the same were not considered. The petitioner and his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 family members were meeting the day to day expenses only from the family pension, apart from earning by working as coolie. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition with the above said prayer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inspite of making representations by the petitioner on 19.11.2008 and by his mother earlier on 08.02.2007, as both have been submitted within two years from the date of death of his father, seeking for the relief of compassionate appointment, were not considered till date and as such the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with this writ petition. 5. It is contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.32, Transport Department, dated 08.01.1986, the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of compassionate appointment. But the efforts taken by the petitioner are not fulfilled till date. 6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents' Corporation would submit that the representations would be considered as per the rules and regulations of the Government Orders. 7. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 8. The fact remains that the petitioner's father was working as a conductor under the respondents' Transport Corporation and he was discharged from the service due to his disability on the ground of the injuries sustained by him due to bus accident. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's father died in the year 2006, and within a period of two years from the date of death, the petitioner preferred an application seeking for the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds, that is, on 19.04.2008 and even prior to that date, the petitioner's mother preferred a representation dated 08.02.2007 seeking for the relief of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is seen that till date the said representations were not considered by the respondents. In view of the same, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner made in the representations dated 08.02.2007 and 19.11.2008, is constrained to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner's mother dated 08.02.2007 and the petitioner dated 19.11.2008 as per the rules and regulations of the Corporation and as per G.O.Ms.No.32, Transport Department, dated 08.01.1986, by affording opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division IV) Limited, Bye-Pass Road, Collectorate Post, Dindigul – 4, Dindigul District. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai – 16. +1cc to Mr.S.Baskaran, Advocate, SR.No.37959 +1. C.C to M/s.S.Govindan,Advocate, SR.No.38011 smn GH : 18.11.2011 : 3p/5c W.P(MD)No.3392 of 2011 03.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/