Madras High Court
P.L.Beryl vs The Principal Secretary on 9 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
P.L.Beryl ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary,
Commissionerate of Treasuries and Accounts,
Integrated Complex for Finance Department,
3rd Floor, Veterinary Hospital Campus,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2. The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second
respondent to consider her representation dated nil for appointment under
Compassionate ground for the death of her deceased father T.Pasaliyooseand.
For Petitioner : Mr.Aravind Raj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Government Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus to consider the petitioner's representation dated nil for
appointment under Compassionate ground for the death of his deceased
father T.Pasaliyooseand.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner's father was
working as Selection Grade Junior in the District Treasury Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. and he died in harness on 23.04.1998, while he
was in service. The petitioner's father died leaving behind the petitioner,
his mother and his grand parents. The Writ Petitioner is son of the
deceased employee. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his
father. Thereafter petitioner's mother submitted an application to the
second respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The
aforesaid application was kept idle without any progress. Thereafter, the
petitioner on attainting majority and after completing his education, has
immediately submitted an application for appointment on compassionate
grounds. However, so far, no order has been passed by the respondents.
Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that it is mandate that while applying for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
compassionate appointment, the candidate must be a major and
possessed requisite education qualification. Furthermore, 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 was minor at the time of death of his
father and after attaining majority and completed his education, he has
submitted the application only 02.11.2020, after a lapse of nearly 22
years. Hence, the respondents cannot consider the petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment.
4. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on
record.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
provision for relaxation of the period in
exceptionally rare cases on the principles as
indicated herein above.”
8. 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.
9. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died
on 23.04.1998 and the petitioner, after attaining majority and completing
his education, submitted his application for compassionate appointment
only on 02.11.2020, nearly after a lapse of 22 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.
10. In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No
costs.
09.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mnr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
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.
To:
1. The Principal Secretary,
Commissionerate of Treasuries and Accounts,
Integrated Complex for Finance Department,
3rd Floor, Veterinary Hospital Campus,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
2. The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mnr
W.P(MD)No.13169 of 2021
09.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
