Madras High Court
C.Arunkamal @ Selvaprabhu vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 5 August, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.16197 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.16197 of 2018
C.Arunkamal @ Selvaprabhu ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep.by its Principal Secretary
Health Department
St.George Fort, Chennai
2.The Director of Medical Education
DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai
3.The Dean
Kilpauk Medical College Hospital
Kilpauk, Chennai ... Respondents
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 order passed in Na.Ka.No.4753/Ni-1/2/2016, dated 13.06.2018,
issued by the third respondent to quash the same and also directing the
respondents to give any suitable appointment to the petitioner on the basis of
the compassionate ground in Medical Department.
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nagendran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Government Counsel
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 13.06.2018, 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 petitioner is that he was born on 30.03.1997
and on the next day i.e.31.03.1997, his mother, who was working as Staff
Nurse in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai, died. Thereafter, his
father was appointed as a Clerk on compassionate ground and he died on
04.05.2006, while he was in service. On 10.07.2013, the petitioner made an
application to the third respondent seeking compassionate appointment.
However, the request of the petitioner was rejected 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was nine years old
and therefore, he could not submit application, however, after attaining the
majority, he submitted application on 10.07.2013 along with requisite
certificates. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner
has lost his father and mother, who were Government servants and he is
suffering a lot without any job and income, his case may be considered for
compassionate appointment.
4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the
respondents 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 ten years and hence, the third 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
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:
“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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
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.”
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
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.
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on
04.05.2006 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate
appointment only on 10.12.2016, nearly after ten 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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
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:
1.The Principal Secretary,
Health Department,
Government of Tamilnadu,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
DMS Campus,
Teynampet, Chennai.
3.The Dean,
Kilpauk Medical College Hospital,
Kilpauk, Chennai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.16197 of 2018
05.08.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
