Madras High Court
P.Mageshwaran vs The Principal Director on 9 August, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.21595 of 2018
P.Mageshwaran ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Director
Department of Highways (K(M)P)
Chepauk, Chennai
2.The Divisional Engineer
Department of highways (K&P) Division
Tirunelveli-2
3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer
Highways (K(M)P)
Radhapuram, Tirunelveli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the impugned order dated
09.07.2018 under reference Na.Ka.No.17/2018/Aa3 passed by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and
consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner
under compassionate ground in the department of Highways subject to the
petitioner educational qualification forthwith.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham
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 09.07.2018, passed by the
second 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 the petitioner's father was
working as Salai Paniyalar under the respondents and died on 24.05.2008,
while he was in service, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother, one brother
and two sisters as legal heirs. Thereafter, on 22.07.2015, the petitioner
submitted application, along with requisite documents and no objection
certificate from the other legal heirs of the deceased employee, to the first
respondent through the respondents 2 and 3, seeking compassionate
appointment. According to the petitioner, while his application was pending
consideration, he came to know that on 18.01.2010, his mother submitted
application to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds to her. When the respondents verifying the genuineness of the
transfer certificate produced by the petitioner's mother, it was found to be not
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
genuine and therefore, her application was rejected. Further, according to the
petitioner, since his application was pending for a long period, he sent a
representation to the Chief Minister Grievance Cell on 19.06.2018, which was
forwarded to the second respondent. However, the second respondent rejected
the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, by order dated
09.07.2018, on the grounds that application was not submitted within the
prescribed period of three years and the earlier application submitted by the
petitioner's mother was rejected for not possessing requisite educational
qualification and production of fake certificate. Challenging the same, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was eleven years
old and therefore, he could not submit application, however, after attaining
the majority, he submitted application on 22.07.2015 along with requisite
certificates. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner
has lost the sole breadwinner of the family 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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
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 seven years and hence, the second 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:
“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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
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.”
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:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
“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.
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on
24.05.2008 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate
appointment only on 22.07.2015, nearly after seven 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
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.
09.08.2021
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.23863 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.23863 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.21595 of 2018
09.08.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
