9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove the case by giving certain particulars in the counter statement. However, the impugned order does not contain any such reasons. The first respondent has clearly admitted in his counteraffidavit that the retirement was on medical ground. This aspect was not considered while rejecting the application. Therefore, of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the second respondent. In the result, the impugned memorandum dated 18 October, 2011, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment to her son on merits and in accordance with the relevant Scheme. While considering the application, necessarily, the second respondent should also con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} <![endif]--> MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN For the Petitioner : Mr. M. R. Sreenivasan For the Respondent : Mr. M. Saravanan, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy ORDER This Writ Petition is directed against the Memorandum dated 18 October, 2011, whereby and whereunder, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, informed the petitioner that her request for compassionate appointment to her son could not be acceded to, on account of the non-fulfillment of essential con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng certain particulars in the counter statement. However, the impugned order does not contain any such reasons. The first respondent has clearly admitted in his counteraffidavit that the retirement was on medical ground. This aspect was not considered while rejecting the application. I am, therefore, of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the second respondent. 6. In the result, the impugned memorandum dated 18 October, 2011, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment to her son on merits and in accordance with the relevant Scheme. While considering the application, necessarily, the second respondent should also consider the adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
