Madras High Court
The General Manager vs A.Chindamani on 25 August, 2021
W.A.No.550 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 22.04.2022
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 06.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.550 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.4051 of 2022
1.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600 002.
At presently in
No.75, Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, R.A.Puram,
Chennai – 600 028. ... Appellants
vs.
A.Chindamani ... Respondent
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter's Patent, to set aside the
order in W.P.No.31311 of 2017 dated 25.08.2021 and set aside the same and
thereby allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by R.K.Kalpana
For Respondent : Mr.K.Raja
*****
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. and N.MALA, J.]
The Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 25.08.2021 passed in
W.P.No.31311 of 2017. The respondent herein filed the above said writ
petition praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call
for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent No.1, in
Ka.No.SEKUVAA/PAMANEE/NEEMA4/7553/ 2017 dated 21.03.2017 and
quash the same and thereby, direct the respondents to grant compassionate
appointment as per the petitioner's representation dated 15.03.2017.
2.The present case is typical of the legal maxim “Vigilantibus non
dormientibus jura subveniunt” meaning that the law assists only those who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights.
THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.The writ petitioner's deceased husband was employed in Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and he worked for 18 years.
The petitioner's husband died in harness on 03.10.1994 leaving behind the
petitioner and their three minor children.
4.According to the petitioner, as the amount of pension received by her
was in-sufficient to maintain her family, she made an application on
27.08.1998 for appointment on compassionate ground and the said
application was not disposed of. At the time when the petitioner made the
application her children were minors and after her son became major she
made a representation on 30.04.2009 for appointment of her son, which was
also not disposed of.
5.The petitioner's further case was that when she came to know that the
Board is recruiting persons, she immediately made a representation on
15.03.2017 and sought appointment for her major son. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
representation was disposed of by the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 on
the ground that the representation was made beyond the period of three years
stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department dated
26.06.1995.
6.A detailed counter was filed in the writ petition. The respondents
disputed the submission of the representation dated 28.07.1998 and further
stated that the application dated 30.04.2009 was submitted with false
information and fabricated documents.
7.The respondents contended that the application was hopelessly
barred by limitation as it was filed after 14 years from the date of death of the
deceased employee. It was the respondents further contention that the very
fact that the application was filed long after the death of the employee, it
would be vividly clear that the family was not in an indigenous situation.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent
and the records have been perused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
9.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the application
of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was hopelessly barred by
limitation as the same was filed after a lapse of 14 years from the date of
death of the employee (03.10.1994). The learned counsel further submitted
that the learned Judge was not right in observing that the appellants by
resorting to pick and choose method were discriminating the petitioner in the
matter of appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel
submitted that the observation of the learned Judge that G.O.Ms.No.120,
Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995 was not given serious
consideration by the appellants in as much as the petitioner was able to
establish that the applications of several persons when submitted beyond the
time stipulated in the G.O. were entertained is untenable on the facts of the
case.
10.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
Judge had not gone into the issue of delay and laches, even though the said
plea was raised in the counter affidavit. The learned counsel therefore prayed
that the writ appeal may be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
11.In contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
appellants were indulging in pick and choose method and several persons
who had filed their application belatedly were given appointment and drew
the attention of the Court to the page No.74 of the typed set of papers in
support of the said contention. The learned counsel therefore prayed for the
dismissal of the writ appeal. According to him there were no merits in the
appeal.
12.The short issue that arises for consideration before us is whether the
petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is legally sustainable or not.
13.As the learned counsel for the respondents raised the issue of
discrimination on 16.03.2022 an order was passed by this Court as
hereunder:
“5.Learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the Appellants/CMWSSB shall ascertain
as to whether compassionate appointments were made
after the year 2017 till 2021, and if so, the list of
Officials who have appointed such candidates need to
be furnished, with the indication as to whether they are
in service or not.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
14.In pursuance of the said order the appellants submitted a report
wherein at page Nos.14, 15 and 16 the details of appointment as sought for
by this Court in the order dated 16.03.2022 were furnished. In the said
report, which is deposed by the General Manager, CMWSSB, it is clearly
stated that the appellants or any of its officials never committed any illegality
in making compassionate appointment and that they have acted as per the
orders of the Hon'ble Court in a specified cases.
15.Be that as it may, it is to be seen whether the respondent has made
out a case for compassionate appointment. Though the respondent stated in
the writ petition that her husband died on 03.10.1994 and she made an
application on 28.07.1998 for appointment on compassionate ground, the
same was denied by the appellants. The appellants in their counter in several
paragraphs have vehemently denied the receipt of the application dated
28.07.1998. The appellants in paragraph No.14 of the counter have
categorically stated that the first application that was submitted by the
petitioner was on 30.04.2009, after a lapse of 14 years from the date of death
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
of the employee and that the said application was submitted along with false
and fabricated documents.
16.It is pertinent to extract here paragraph Nos.8 and 12 of the counter
affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petition.
“8.It is submitted that the petitioner has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. He
has submitted before this Hon'ble Court that many
applications were submitted claiming appointment to
him on compassionate ground on many occasion. To
substantiate such false claim, he has submitted forged
documents. The applications allegedly submitted were
neither acknowledged nor possessed the proof for
registration. She has alleged that an application was
submitted on 28.07.1998. She is misleading this
Hon'ble Court as no such application was received in
this office. Her petition deserved to be dismissed
devoid of facts and merits. She has filed this Writ
Petition relying on forged documents.
12.It is submitted that after a lapse of 14 years
after the death of the employee, his wife
Tmt.Chindamani submitted an application on
30.04.2009 to the General Manager to provide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
appointment on compassionate ground. This was the
first application submitted by the family with false
information and fabricated documents. But the
application given was barred by limitations. Hence
rejected and the file was disposed under 'K' Disposal
on 03.09.2009. She furnished copy of letters allegedly
to have been submitted on 28.07.1998. She is
misleading this Hon'ble Court as no such application
was received in this office. Her petition deserved to be
dismissed devoid of facts and merits. She has filed this
Writ Petition relying on forged documents.”
17.When such a categorical stand is taken by the appellant, it is
surprising nay astonishing that no rejoinder was filed denying the said
imputations by the respondent. If really the respondent had submitted an
application as early as on 28.07.1998, she would have filed some document
in the form of an acknowledgment in proof of such submission. The failure of
the respondent in denying such serious imputations raises a doubt as to the
genuineness of the claim of the respondent, regarding the submission of the
application dated 28.07.1998. Therefore, it is presumed that the first
application that was received by the appellants was the application dated
30.04.2009. The said application was submitted 14 years after the death of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
the deceased employee and therefore as rightly contended by the appellants
counsel the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned Judge has
failed to discuss the issue of delay and laches eventhough it was raised in the
counter and has allowed the writ petition.
18.Appointment on compassionate grounds is not driven by sympathy,
but compliance of the parameters laid down by law are essentially to be
satisfied.
19.It would be relevant to note here few Judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard. In the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir
and others v/s. Sajab Ahamed Mir reported in 2006 (5) SCC 766, it was
held that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general
rule of appointment to public office which is based on competitive merits.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment dismissed the claim for
compassionate appointment on the ground of delay and laches. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that there was no need to make appointment on
compassionate grounds at the cost of interest of several others ignoring the
mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, when it was proved that
the family had overcome the crisis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and other Vs. Nirval Singh reported in 2019 6 SCC
774 has categorically held that the delay in pursuing the claim/approaching
Court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as the very
objective is to provide immediate amelioration to the family. In the said case
also the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of
delay.
21.In a more recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Steel Authority of India Vs. Gouri Devi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reiterated the above principles and rejected the application filed for
compassionate appointment made after 18 years on the ground of delay and
laches.
21.It is now fairly well settled that there is no vested right to
compassionate appointment and such right cannot be exercised at the whim
and fancy of the claimant. The claim for compassionate appointment is
circumcized by the scheme for compassionate appointment. It is also well
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
settled that the object behind appointment on compassionate ground is to
enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis into which it is
pushed and not to provide employment on the mere death of the employee.
Fruitful reference can be made to the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana
and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and to the case of Managing
Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi and another Vs. Pramoda Dei alias
Nayak reported in (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 390 in this regard.
22.On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the
subject, the order passed by the learned Judge is set aside and the writ appeal
is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [N.M.,J.]
06.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ah
To
1.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
N.MALA, J.
ah
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT
IN W.A.No.550 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.4051 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.550 of 2022
06.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
