Madras High Court
Saravanakumar vs The District Collector on 24 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
Saravanakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai – 625 020.
2.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Melur Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide
proceeding in O.Mu.No.29802/2019/G1 dated 07.08.2019 and quash the same
as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to give employment to the
petitioner under compassionate appointment scheme by considering his
educational qualification.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Standing Counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the relief of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned order
passed by the first respondent vide proceeding in O.Mu.No.29802/2019/G1
dated 07.08.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to give employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds.
2.The petitioner's father namely Subramanian joined duty as Village
Assistant at Navininpatti Village on 22.01.1990. He died on 22.12.2002 while
he was in service. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's
mother made application to the respondents seeking appointment to her on
compassionate grounds. No orders has been passed on the representation.
Therefore, after attaining majority, the petitioner has submitted an application
to the respondent seeking employment on compassionate grounds. The said
application was rejected in the impugned proceedings in O.Mu.No.
29802/2019/G1 dated 07.08.2019 on the ground that the petitioner has
approached the Department after a lapse of eleven years. Challenging the
aforesaid impugned proceedings, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
3.The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner's mother had made her first application on 24.04.2003 and the said
application is still pending. The petitioner has made an application after he
attained the age of 18 years on 08.12.2008 after attaining the age of 18 years.
4.I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
5.It is seen that the petitioner has submitted application after attaining
majority on 08.12.2008 with a delay of three years. The said application for
compassionate appointment has not been made within a prescribed period of
three years from the date of death of the deceased employee which cannot be
admissible for grant of appointment under compassionate grounds.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
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:
“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.13198 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
pnn
9.By following the above judgments, this Court finds no illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the respondent in O.Mu.No.29802/2019/G1
dated 07.08.2019, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
10.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 District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai – 625 020.
2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.
W.P(MD)No.13198 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
