Madras High Court
Saranya vs The Director General Of Police on 24 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.17711 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.17711 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14802 of 2020
Saranya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Director General of Police Office,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
D.I.G.Office, New Natham road,
Madurai – 625 002.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Superintendent of Police Office,
Madurai, Madurai- 625 007. ... 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 third respondent vide
office proceeding in Na.Ka.No.P3/022556/244/2020 on the file of the third
respondent dated 14.09.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
direct the respondents to give employment to the petitioner under
compassionate appointment scheme by considering her education qualification.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the relief of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the
third respondent vide office proceeding in Na.Ka.No.P3/022556/244/2020 on
the file of the third respondent dated 14.09.2020 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents to give employment to the petitioner
under compassionate appointment scheme by considering her education
qualification.
2.The petitioner's father namely Kumarasamy was serving as Police (I
Grade) at Vikramangalam Police Station, Madurai District. He joined duty on
22.05.1988 and he died on 13.09.2004 while he was in service. After the death
of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother has submitted an application on
11.11.2004 seeking appointment to her under compassionate grounds.
According to the petitioner, while such application is pending, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
attained majority and submitted an application to the respondent on 17.11.2016
claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. The said request of the
petitioner was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner has
made an application after a lapse of 14 years after the date of death of the
deceased employee. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has attained
majority and thereafter applied for the post on 17.11.2016.
3.The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner's mother had made her application on 11.11.2004 and the said
application is still pending. The petitioner has made an application after he
attained the age of 18 years on 17.11.2016, which is with a delay of 14 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 17.11.2016 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
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.By following the above judgments, this Court finds no illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the third respondent in
Na.Ka.No.P3/022556/244/2020 dated 14.09.2020 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner.
10.In fine, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Director General of Police Office,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
D.I.G.Office, New Natham road,
Madurai – 625 002.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Superintendent of Police Office,
Madurai, Madurai- 625 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
pnn
W.P(MD)No.17711 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14802 of 2020
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
