Madras High Court
S.Ajithkumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 24 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
S.Ajithkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration,
and Water supply,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner/Director,
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-05.
3.The Commissioner,
Trichy Corporation,
Trichy. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent
No.2 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground with the respondent
No.3 Corporation for any suitable post on the basis of his educational
qualification with consequential benefits within the time period stipulated by
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Standing Counsel.
For R3 : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus,
to direct the respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground
with the respondent No.3 Corporation for any suitable post on the basis of his
educational qualification with consequential benefits within the time period
stipulated by this Court.
2.The petitioner's father namely Saravanan was working as Revenue
Assistant in the third respondent corporation and he died on 15.07.2011 while
he was in service. After his demise, the petitioner made an application seeking
compassionate appointment to him before the third respondent. On 20.06.2017
the third respondent has given a reply, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner was a minor when the representation for
compassionate appointment was made. Thereafter on 08.07.2017 the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
petitioner's mother made a representation seeking appointment to the petitioner
on compassionate grounds. The same was also rejected by order dated
14.07.2017. Again on 15.10.2018, the petitioner made an application to the
third respondent with no objection certificate in favour of him from the other
legal heirs. Since no action has been taken, this Writ Petition has been filed.
3.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation would
submit that the writ petitioner's mother had submitted an representation on
06.06.2014 and on the said representation, a notice was sent to the writ
petitioner's mother to furnish the certificate from the Tahsildar, Educational
certificate and the Death Certificate of the petitioner. Thereafter, no response
has been received from the petitioner's mother.
4.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent further submitted that
the petitioner's second application was not maintainable as the same is
submitted beyond the prescribed period of three years.
5.I carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
6.It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's mother has submitted an
application on 06.06.2014 to the third respondent corporation and on the said
application, the third respondent has served a notice to the petitioner's mother
for producing the materials and required documents to prove the petitioner's
eligibility for grant of employment on compassionate grounds. Since the same
was not furnished by the petitioner, the petition was closed. As rightly rejected
by the third respondent, the petitioner was a minor on 06.06.2014 when the
application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds by the petitioner's
mother.
7.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.
8. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC
613], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
“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 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.1691 of 2019
9.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.”
10.By following the above judgments, this Court finds no illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the respondent, rejecting the claim of the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
11.In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
24.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
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 State of Tamilnadu,
represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration, and Water supply,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner/Director,
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.The Commissioner, Trichy Corporation, Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
pnn
W.P(MD)No.1691 of 2019
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
