The Madras High Court upholding the Supreme Court’s point of view that any relief granted in a case applies to all other identically situated persons, allowed the grant of Compassionate Appointment to a son on grounds of “deemed regularisation” of father’s services.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner in this case had requested for compassionate appointment as a Ration Shop Salesman after his father’s death. But the petitioner’s application for such appointment was rejected on the pretext that the services of his father was not regularized before his death and therefore, he cannot claim for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The present case was moved to the Madras High Court via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for the petitioner of the case argued that similarly placed persons like that of his father, had the benefit of an order of this Court passed in the case of A. Sivakumar vs. The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-op. & Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others, wherein the services of all the petitioners therein were directed to be regularised and therefore, the petitioner's father's services also should be deemed to have been 'regularised' and therefore, the impugned order couldn’t be sustained.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents claimed that petitioner's father was not sponsored through Employment Exchange at the time of his original appointment. Moreover, his services also were not regularised till his date of death and hence not deemed to be a 'regular employee' of the Society. Since the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment can be extended only to the legal heirs of the regular employees, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the second respondent.
Observations of the Court: The Court observed that by virtue of the judgment passed in A. Sivakumar Vs. The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-op. & Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others reported in CDJ 2021 MHC 425, the petitioner’s father’s service should have been regularised and not doing so was a failure on the respondent’s part. Furthermore, the Court said that the contention about petitioner's father's initial appointment not having been sponsored through Employment Exchange was also settled in the before-mentioned judgment and thus, the right of an irregular appointee to claim regularisation of services, was held legally permissible.
Decision of the Court:
The impugned order was quashed by the court, directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
Case Title: K.Anbarasan vs The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies
Case No.: W.P.No.4571 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
Advocates for Respondent: Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, SGP, Mr.M.Rajendiran, AGP
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
