Madras High Court
A.Vijayaanand vs The Superintendent Of Police on 5 August, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.15255 of 2018
A.Vijayaanand ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District
Sivagangai ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings in Na.No.A4/8453/90/2013, dated 08.04.2013, on the
file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, within
stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Government Counsel
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 08.04.2013, passed by the
respondent and to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as
Constable in the Police Department and he died on 10.03.2001, while he was
in service. On 19.02.2013, the petitioner made an application to the Chief
Minister's Special Cell seeking compassionate appointment. However, the
request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent on the ground that
the application was not made within the prescribed period of three years.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was minor and
therefore, he could not submit application, however, after attaining the
majority, he submitted application on 19.02.2013 along with requisite
certificates. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner's
family is in indigent circumstances after the death of the sole breadwinner, the
petitioner's case may be considered for compassionate appointment.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that as per the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the time limit to prefer
application for compassionate appointment is three years from the date of
death of the employee. But, the petitioner herein submitted application after a
lapse of nearly twelve years and hence, the respondent has rightly rejected
the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. 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.
7. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh [(2019)
15 SCC 613], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
“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 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.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
8. The Honourable Full Bench in Paragraph No.13 of the
Judgment dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.7016 of 2011 has 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.”
9. Furthermore, G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1)
Department, dated 23.01.2020, has clearly prescribed the time limit to prefer
application for compassionate appointment as three years from the date of
death of the Government servants.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on
10.03.2001 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate
appointment only on 19.02.2013, nearly after twelve years. Therefore, in view
of the above settled legal position, the claim of the 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.
11. In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
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.
krk
To:
The Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.17350 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.15255 of 2018
05.08.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
