AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Bakthavatsalam, J.—The petitioner challenges an order of the first respondent dated November 25, 1987 cancelling the appointment
given to the petitioner under the scheme of providing employment assistance to the dependants of the employees who die in harness.
The petitioner''s father died due to a fatal accident arising out of and in the course of employment on August 5, 1984. Under the scheme of
providing job to the legal heirs of the employees of the Electricity Board who died in harness, the petitioner was selected to the post of Helper and
was allotted to the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Depot by order dated June 7, 1986. By the impugned order, the above mentioned order of
appointment has been cancelled.
Mr. Ayyathurai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice and that no notice has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He further contends that the said order has
been passed unilaterally without calling for representation from the writ petitioner and as such it has to be set aside. The petitioner has come up
before this Court, with the assistance rendered by the State Legal Aid Board.
When the matter came up for hearing on February 13, 1981 there was no representation on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board. Today
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board wants time to file a counter-affidavit. In my view, no counter is necessary when
the impugned order speaks for itself.
A look at the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner''s case was re-examined behind the back of the petitioner and that the respondent
Board came to the conclusion that the family of the petitioner is not in indigent circumstances deserving the employment assistance on
compassionate grounds. The said impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The fundamental principle
of audi alteram partem has not been followed in this case and the petitioner''s plea that the impugned order has to be set aside is well founded. So,
on the short ground that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity before the impugned order came to be passed, the writ petition is allowed
and the impugned order is set aside. It is open to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner and decide the issue afresh. The
respondent is directed to pass final order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Since the petitioner has come up to this
Court through Legal Aid Board, I do hope the respondent will pass orders expeditiously within the time limit prescribed above. The writ petition is
allowed. No costs.