Madras High Court
S.Karthika Devi vs The Commissioner on 18 August, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
S.Karthika Devi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepak, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Corporation,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned
order dated 08.11.2018 vide O.Mu.No.27406/2018/H2 passed by the 1 st
respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner in suitable job under compassionate
appointment based on her applications dated 24.01.2011 and 03.10.2018.
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arul Jenifer
For Respondents : Mr.A.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for Government for R1
Mr.J.Lawrance,
Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 08.11.2018, passed by the first
respondent and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in suitable job
under compassionate appointment based on her applications dated 24.01.2011
and 03.10.2018.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her father was working as Shutter
Operator in Authur Kamarajar Sagar Reservoir and he died on 17.02.2008, while
he was in service. On 24.01.2011, the petitioner made an application to the
respondents seeking compassionate appointment, within the three years period.
However, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the
petitioner did not attain the age of 18 years at the time of submitting the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
application. Thereafter, the petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, has
submitted an application on 03.10.2018. However, the said application was also
requested on the ground that the petitioner's family is not in indigent
circumstances, because the petitioner has completed her graduation. Challenging
the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner is unsustainable, because the
petitioner has completed her graduation under scholarship. Therefore, the same is
liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second
respondent Municipality submits that the petitioner's mother has not chosen to
apply for compassionate appointment in the respondent Municipality and the
petitioner has sought for compassionate appointment. At the time of submitting
the application, the petitioner was minor and after attaining the majority, she
submitted an application after a lapse of 10 years and hence, the first respondent
has rightly rejected the application for compassionate appointment.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
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
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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
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.7799 of 2019
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. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on
17.02.2008 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate
appointment only on 03.10.2018, nearly after ten years. Therefore, in view of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
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 the same is dismissed. No
costs.
18.08.2021
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.
vsm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vsm
To:
1.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepak, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Corporation,
Dindigul.
W.P.(MD) No.7799 of 2019
18.08.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
