Madras High Court
Sri Rajalakshmi vs The Director General Of Police on 5 August, 2021
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.8911 of 2018
and
W.P.(MD).No.8310 of 2018
Sri Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai- 6.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Head Quarters, (Crime),
Madurai City.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in
connection with the impugned orders in Na.Ka.No.A4/62243/2009 dated
30.03.2013 on the file of the third respondent and the consequential order in
Na.Ka.No.A4/57527/2017 dated 28.11.2017 on the file of the second
respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents herein to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on
compassionate grounds.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Shankar Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Standing Counsel,
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 30.03.2013, passed
by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner's father
was working as Constable in the third respondent department and he
died in harness on 30.09.2009, while he was in service. Her father
died leaving behind her, her mother and her sister. The Writ
Petitioner is daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner was
minor at the time of death of her father. Thereafter petitioner's mother
submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on
01.03.2010 for petitioner. The aforesaid application was rejected by
the third respondent on the ground that the request was not in
accordance with G.O.Ms.No.120 (Labour and Employment Department)
dated 26.06.1995. After attaining majority, the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
submitted an application on 11.09.2017 to the first respondent
requesting to provide her employment on compassionate ground.
However, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner
on 28.11.2017 on the ground that the said application is beyond the
three years period as per the government orders.
3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that the petitioner has submitted the application for
compassionate ground 11.09.2017, nearly after 8 years. The
application should be submitted within 3 years from the date of death
of the employee. Based on the aforesaid proceedings, the second
respondent has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Further the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the
said period for submitting the application has been elaborately
discussed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
5. Identical issue came up before the Honourable Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.No.1749 of 2019 (Sudhanthira Devi vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu and others) [in the said Judgment, myself
(DKKJ) is one of the member] and the Division Bench, by Judgment
dated 03.09.2019, following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme
Court, has held that applications for compassionate appointment
submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be entertained.
6. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh
[(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as
follows:
“8. This ‘dispose of the representation’
mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial
process in the High Courts and the Tribunals.
Such orders may make for a quick or easy
disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory
institutions. But, they do no service to the
cause of justice. The litigant is back again
before the Court, as this case shows, having
incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of
the legal process. This would have been
obviated by calling for a counter in the first
instance, thereby resulting in finality to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its
direction on 9-8- 2016, nearly twenty one years
had elapsed since the date of the death of the
employee.
9. ...
10. Bearing in mind the above principles,
this Court held: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State
of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138) SCC pp.141-42,
para 6)
“6. For these very reasons, the
compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of a reasonable
period which must be specified in the
rules. The consideration for such
employment is not a vested right which
can be exercised at any time in future.
The object being to enable the family to
get over the financial crisis which it faces
at the time of the death of the sole
breadwinner, the compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and
offered whatever the lapse of time and
after the crisis is over.”
7. The Honourable Full Bench in Paragraph No.13 of the
Judgment dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.7016 of 2011 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
held as follows:
“13. In the light of the above we find
that the judgment in the case of A.Kamatchi
v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, (2013) 2 CWC 758 is not only
contrary to the law laid down in the case of
E.Ramasamy v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, but it
also has, as indicated by our brother,
Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his
judgment, misconstrued the same. In view
of what has been indicated above we are
also of the view that the period of three
years is a rationale and reasonable period
under the relevant Government Orders and
the rules. We may, however, observe that
it is open to the State Government to make
any provision for relaxation of the period in
exceptionally rare cases on the principles as
indicated herein above.”
8. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died
on 30.09.2009 and the petitioner submitted application for
compassionate appointment only on 11.09.2017, nearly after 8 years.
Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position, the claim of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
petitioner made beyond the prescribed period of three years cannot be
entertained and it deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the impugned
order does not warrant any interference of this Court.
9. In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
mnr
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai- 6.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Head Quarters, (Crime),
Madurai City.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No(MD).8911 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mnr
W.P.(MD) No.8911 of 2018
and
W.P.(MD).No.8310 of 2018
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
