Tmt. K.Girija, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.07.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR K.Girija ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3.The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Tirunelveli Region, TANGEDCO, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 001.
4.The Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Generation Circle, TANGEDCO, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 001.
... Respondents Page No. 1 of 6
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to passed by the fourth respondent in Lr.No.001751/78/Adm.-1/Assistant3/File.C.A/2018 dated 31.05.2018 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to provide forthwith compassionate appointment to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran for Mr.S.Mohanavadivelan For Respondents : Mr.K.Purushothaman
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 31.05.2018, whereby, the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of her father was negatived by the fourth respondent on the ground that the petitioner has given consent for considering the case of her brother for compassionate appointment and also on the ground that the case of the petitioner's brother was already considered for compassionate appointment and the same was rejected through proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Mh;/014271/319 epgp 1/c/1/2008 dated 22.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Page No. 2 of 6
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has given consent for considering the case of her brother for compassionate appointment on medical invalidation and subsequent death of her father. The petitioner having given consent for considering the case of her brother for compassionate appointment, the petitioner again cannot claim the very same compassionate appointment for her.
3. As seen from the impugned order, the claim of the brother of the petitioner was considered, pursuant to the consent given by the petitioner and the same was rejected through proceedings dated 22.10.2008 and the said rejection was also challenged before this Court by the brother of the petitioner by filing the writ petition in W.P.No.25263 of 2010 and the same is also stated to have been dismissed by this Court.
4. In the light of the above, the petitioner has lost her claim, if any, for being considered for compassionate appointment on giving a consent for considering her brother's case for such appointment, and since the claim of her brother was already considered and rejected by the respondents, the question of petitioner's case being considered once again for compassionate appointment does not arise.
Page No. 3 of 6
5. In the light of the above circumstances, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 23.07.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order jas Page No. 4 of 6
To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3.The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Tirunelveli Region, TANGEDCO, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 001.
4.The Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli Generation Circle, TANGEDCO, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli - 627 001.
Page No. 5 of 6
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J.
jas 23.07.2024 Page No. 6 of 6