Madras High Court

Altrin Williams vs The Director Of School Education on 19 August, 2021

W.P. (MD).No.18194 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.18194 of 2019

Altrin Williams
... Petitioner
Vs.

1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd
respondent passed in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.18/A1/2017 dated
23.02.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Madasamy
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Counsel for State.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. (MD).No.18194 of 2019

ORDER

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

certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 23.02.2017, 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 his mother was working

as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Primary School,

Malayandi Goundanur, Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Tiruppur District

and she died on 12.05.2008, while she was in service, leaving behind the

petitioner, his father and sister as legal heirs. Thereafter on attaining

majority, the petitioner's father submitted a representation, dated

28.12.2016, to the respondents seeking appointment for the petitioner

on compassionate grounds. However, the third respondent rejected the

aforesaid representation, vide order dated 23.02.2017, 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.18194 of 2019

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

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 mother and after attaining majority, he submitted application after a

lapse of nearly eight years and hence, the third 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 Wherein one of us (DKKJ) passed orders 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.18194 of 2019

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.18194 of 2019

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.”

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. (MD).No.18194 of 2019

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.”

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 20.04.1998 and the petitioner, after attaining majority,

submitted application for compassionate appointment only on

28.12.2016, nearly after a lapse of eight 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.18194 of 2019

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

costs.

19.08.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No