Madras High Court
M.Geethanjali vs The Director on 20 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.349 of 2018
M.Geethanjali
... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director,
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Chennai - 6.
2. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. .
3. The Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
M.Pudhupatti,
Sivakasi Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 03.01.2018, passed in W.P(MD).No.9819 of 2013.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,
Special Government Pleader,
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 03.01.2018, passed
in W.P(MD).No.9819 of 2013. The appellant filed the writ petition praying
for a direction to the first respondent to consider her representation for grant
of appointment on compassionate ground. The learned Single Bench after
referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court,
dismissed the writ petition.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
3. In our considered view, a need did not arise for the Court to
express any opinion on the correctness of the claim made by the appellant as
the relief sought for in the writ petition was an innocuous releif for a
direction to consider the representation.
4. The second respondent had expressed his opinion by
communication, dated 04.04.2013, stating that the application is beyond the
period of three years from the date of demise of the employee and therefore,
the same cannot be entertained. However, the appellant does not dispute the
fact that the application is being processed by her at present, but she has a
very peculiar case to be considered by the respondents.
5. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant, we are also of the view that the case of the appellant is very
peculiar case, which may require a consideration by the Head of
Department, namely, the first respondent herein.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
6. We say so, because of the following facts:
The appellant's mother Tmt.R.Murugeswari, was working as a Village
Health Nurse attached to the Government Primary Health Centre,
M.Pudhupatti and she died in harness on 17.02.2006. The death was not
natural, but she was murdered by none other than by her husband/appellant's
father. The appellant's father is now serving life imprisonment since 2006.
On the date when the appellant's mother was done to death, the appellant
was aged about 11 years and she had a younger brother. The circumstances
would clearly show that the appellant and her brother were virtually
orphans, because the mother is no more and the father is serving life
imprisonment.
7. The learned Sernior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the appellant's younger brother M.Krushisankar has also left the
appellant to fend herself.
8. The appellant pursued her claim for grant of appointment on
compassionate ground after she attained majority on 19.03.2013. It is, no
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
doubt, that the scheme formulated by the Government states that the
application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground should be
submitted within three years, from the date of demise of the Government
servant. The facts of the present case have obviously precluded the
appellant from making such a claim. Under normal circumstances, the Court
could not grant relief. To that extent, we agreed with the learned Single
Bench, but however, considering the innocuous relief sought for, the matter
could have been left to the decision of the Head of the Department and if
there are any avenues to exercise compassion, the application can be
considered.
9. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. The order passed
in the writ petition is set aside and the appellant is directed to submit a fresh
representation enclosing all relevant documents to the first respondent
through proper channel, namely, through the third respondent. The third
respondent is directed to forward the representation within ten days from the
date of the receipt, to the second respondent, who in turn, shall forward the
same with his recommendations/proposals to the first respondent within
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
three weeks therefrom and the first respondent shall consider the
representation on merits within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the proposals from the second respondent. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
20.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
To
1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner,
H.R.&C.E.Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,
Madurai - 625 002.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.349 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
W.A.(MD) No.349 of 2018
20.04.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
