Madras High Court

Sathya Narayani vs The Chief Educational Officer on 19 August, 2021

W.P. (MD).No.19974 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 19.08.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.(MD) No.19974 of 2019

Sathya Narayani ... Petitioner
Vs.

1. The Chief Educational Officer,
Pudukottai,
Pudukottai District.

2. The Headmistress,
Rani Government Girls Higher Secondary School,
Pudukottai. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of Writ a of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in
O.Mu.No.582/A1/2019 dated 28.01.2019 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's case for
compassionate appointment by considering her representation dated
21.01.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Counsel for State

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD).No.19974 of 2019

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of

certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 28.01.2019, passed

by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to consider

the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her mother was working

as P.G Assistant (Tamil) in the second respondent Scholl and she died on

16.07.2009 while she was in service, leaving behind the petitioner as

legal heirs. Thereafter on attaining majority, the petitioner submitted a

representation, dated 21.01.2019, to the respondents seeking

compassionate appointement. However, the first respondent rejected the

petitioner's request, vide order dated 28.01.2019, on the ground that

application for compassionate appointment was not submitted within the

prescribed period of three years from the date of death of the petitioner's

mother and the petitioner was a minor at the relevant time. Challenging

the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that it is mandate that while applying for

compassionate appointment, the candidate must be a major and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.19974 of 2019

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

her mother and after attaining majority, she submitted application after

a lapse of nearly ten years and hence, the first respondent has rightly

rejected 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), 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.

6. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh

[(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.19974 of 2019

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.19974 of 2019

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 provision for relaxation of the period in exceptionally rare cases on the principles as indicated herein above.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.19974 of 2019

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 mother

died on 16.07.2009 and the petitioner, after attaining majority,

submitted application for compassionate appointment only on

21.01.2019, nearly after a lapse of 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.

10. In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No

costs.

19.08.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No

mnr