Madras High Court
A.Chindamani vs The General Manager on 25 August, 2021
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
A.Chindamani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600002.
2.The Chairman & Mananging Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600002. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
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.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
ORDER
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the
first respondent in Ka.No.SEKUVAA/PAMANEE/NEEMA4/7553/2017
dated 21.03.2017 and to quash the same and thereby, direct the respondents to
grant appointment on compassionate ground as per the petitioner's
representation dated 15.03.2017.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated
21.03.2017, rejecting her application for appointment on compassionate
ground for her son, who was minor at the time of death of his father on
03.10.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner's husband
passed away on 03.10.1994, there were no guidelines for the appointment on
compassionate ground and therefore, unaware of the subsequent
development, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate
appointment on 28.07.1998. Thereafter, since there was no response, the
petitioner made the representations dated 30.04.2009 and 15.03.2017 and the
same was rejected by the impugned order dated 21.03.2017. In the impugned
order, the first respondent has rejected the petitioner's application for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
appointment for her son on compassionate ground by citing G.O.Ms.No.120,
Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995, as per which, an
application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within
three years from the date of death of the employee.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several persons
were appointed arbitrarily who had registered after three years of the death of
the deceased employee in a RTI response obtained under the Right to
Information Act (for brevity 'RTI Act'). In this connection, the learned
counsel has filed a copy of response dated 08.03.2019 obtained by the
petitioner under the RTI Act, as per which, several persons who had made
applications after the petitioner and also more than three years after the
demise of the Government servants, have been granted appointment on
compassionate ground. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the
respondent/Board being a public body, cannot discriminate and cannot
impose the content of the G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment
Department dated 26.06.1995 arbitrarily against the petitioner. It is submitted
that if the petitioner's father had been alive, the petitioner would have got
better education and would not have suffered penury and indigence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the issue
involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'N.C.Santhosh Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after
reviewing several decisions rendered by it, held that appointment on
compassionate ground offered to, is an exception to the norms. It is further
submitted that norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the
application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate
appointment. A dependant of a Government employee, in the absence of any
vested right accruing on the death of the Government employee, can only
demand consideration of his or her application. He is, however, dis-entitled
to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day
of the death of the Government employee. Paragraphs 19 & 20 from the said
decision are reproduced below:
“19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled
out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is
that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the
application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee,
in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the
government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her
application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the
government employee.
20. In view of the foregoing opinion, we endorse the Tribunal's view as
affirmed [N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar
7396] by the High Court of Karnataka to the effect that the appellants
were ineligible for compassionate appointment when their
applications were considered and the unamended provisions of Rule 5
of the Rules will not apply to them. Since no infirmity is found in the
impugned judgments [N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, 2012 SCC
OnLine Kar 7396] , [Sayeda Farheen Banao v. State of Karnataka,
2013 SCC OnLine Kar 6616] , [Santosh v. Revenue Deptt., WP No.
28738 of 2011, order dated 2-12-2011 (Kar)], the appeals are found
devoid of merit and the same are dismissed.”
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for the respondent.
6. Admittedly, at the time of the death of the petitioner's husband on
03.10.1994, there was no uniform policy which was adopted by the
respondents for appointment on compassionate ground. G.O.Ms.No.120,
Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995 was passed a few
months after the death of the petitioner's husband. However, that G.O has not
been given serious consideration by the respondent/Board in as much as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
petitioner has been able to demonstrate that several persons' applications were
much later and beyond three years limitation prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.120,
Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995 and they have given
appointment by the respondents. The respondents cannot discriminate by
resorting to pick and choose method in the matter of appointment on
compassionate ground also.
7. As a matter of fact, the Government of Tamil Nadu has now issued a
revised G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated
23.01.2020. In the said G.O also, a three year limitation period has been
given for filing an application from the date of death of the Government
servant. The intention of the Government of Tamil Nadu is to provide
employment on compassionate grounds wherever the family is in indigent
circumstances. Though there is hardly any scope to enter indigence as the
dependants of the deceased employee are entitled to pension and family
pension. Nevertheless, the Government is appointing the dependants of the
deceased employees on compassionate grounds, in case, where there is a
death of a Government employee while in service.
8. This is a case where the petitioner herself appears to be an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
uneducated and a semi-literate person. It is not expected for an uneducated
homemaker to be aware of the Government orders, which are released from
time to time, by the Government. Considering the fact that the petitioner's
son was a minor at the time of the death of his father and also the fact that
there was no other guideline which was uniformly being applied at the time
of the death of the petitioner's husband, this Court is inclined to direct the
respondent/Board to consider the petitioner's application for appointment on
compassionate ground of her son, favourably by overlooking the three year
limitation prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment
Department dated 26.06.1995. The respondent/Board may also consider the
fact that several other persons who had applied after the petitioner's
application were appointed after the limitation period of three years
prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department dated
26.06.1995 had expired and by relaxing the same by applying G.O.Ms.No.18,
Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020 which is
currently prevailing for employment on compassionate grounds. The
respondent/Board shall dispose of the application of the petitioner favourably,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
provided the petitioner satisfies the other criteria for appointment on
compassionate ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
C.SARAVANAN, J.
Sni
13. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
25.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600002.
2.The Chairman & Mananging Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600002.
W.P.No.31311 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
