Madras High Court
S.Prakash Kumar vs The District Collector on 9 February, 2021
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
S.Prakash Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Block Development Officer,
Achrapakkam Panchayat Union,
Acharapakkam,
Chengalpet District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the 1st Respondent herein and to quash the impugned order of the 1st
Respondent in Na.Ka.No.479/2020/Sa.U.Thee/Pa.01, dated 30.12.2020 and
direct the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner's Application dated
21.01.2008 for compassionate appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian
For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.A.S.Senthil Vel,
Additional Government Pleader
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.P.Chinnadurai
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
ORDER
Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the
impugned order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the 1st Respondent in
Na.Ka.No.479/2020/Sa.U.Thee/Pa.01, and for a direction to the 1st
Respondent to consider his Application dated 21.01.2008 for compassionate
appointment.
2. According to the Petitioner, his father, who served as an
Organiser in Nutritious Meal Scheme, Gudalur Panchayat Union Middle
School, died intestate on 23.11.2007, while in service. Thereafter, the
Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 21.01.2008 to the 1st
Respondent with necessary particulars. Since there was no response to his
Application, the Petitioner sent a complaint letter dated 19.06.2020 to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister's Cell that, the matter is pending for 12 years.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.08.2020, the 1st Respondent sent a letter to the
2nd Respondent seeking particulars and a copy of the said communication is
said to have been marked to the Petitioner. However, the 1st Respondent
rejected the Petitioner's request vide communication dated 30.12.2020 stating
that, the deceased Sundaram has got a female heir viz. Charumathi and that,
her Application may be considered for compassionate appointment. It is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
case of the Petitioner that, his sister Charumathi is married and is no longer in
his family and the question of asking her to apply after 13 years of death of
his father, is nothing but a colourable exercise of power. Hence, the
impugned order of the 1st Respondent is liable to be quashed.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
4. Admittedly, the Petitioner has made an Application to the 1st
Respondent seeking appointment on compassionate ground, on 21.01.2008,
immediately after his father's death. At the time of his father's death, the
Petitioner's brother and sister got married and were living separately. It is not
in dispute that, the Petitioner has been taking care of his mother after his
father's death. When the Petitioner has complied with the requirements of
seeking compassionate appointment, by making an Application within the
stipulated period, Respondents ought to have taken a decision on his
Application immediately. Without doing so, rejecting his Application after
12 years, is certainly unfair. Undoubtedly, there is no fault on the part of the
Petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
5. In a similar circumstance, the First Bench of this Court in W.P.
(MD) Nos.7016 of 2011, batch of cases, by an order dated 11.03.2020, has
held as under:
“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.
14. Where there is a contest between legal
heirs, priority should be given to the one who is
befitting enough to shoulder the responsibility of
destitution of the family. In the event there is a
Court intervention, the orders passed or final
verdict should be adhered to. In the event of mere
pendency, appointment may be given subject to the
outcome of the litigation or any orders passed by
the Court to that effect.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
6. In view of the foregoing, this Court directs the 1st Respondent
herein to consider the Petitioner's Application dated 21.01.2008 seeking
appointment on compassionate ground, and pass appropriate orders on merits
in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The 1st Respondent is further directed to communicate the
decision taken on the said representation, to the Petitioner within a period of
three weeks from the date of decision taken thereon, by way of
SMS/Email/Registered Post/Speed Post, so that, there is no need for the
parties to file contempt after expiry of the specified period. In case, the
Authorities concerned fail to send communication to the parties, they will
have to face civil imprisonment in case of contempt proceedings and, if they
are unable to serve the order and the cover being returned unserved for one
reason or the other, the same shall be kept in the file without opening it for
the sake of proof of delivery, so that the parties, at a later point of time, will
not take a plea that he/she is not aware of the order of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction and
observation. No costs.
09.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Office of the Collectorate,
Kanchipuram District.
2. The Block Development Officer,
Achrapakkam Panchayat Union,
Acharapakkam,
Chengalpet District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
W.P.No.2769 of 2021
09.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
