Madras High Court
K.Jayasree vs Metropolitan Transport ... on 26 February, 2021
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
1. K.Jayasree
2. K.Parthasaradhi ... Petitioners
Vs.
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavam Illam, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the
records pertaining to the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Respondent in
Memo No.572/PaPi (Pori)/1/Ma.Po.Ka./2019, quash the same and
consequently direct the Respondent to provide the Petitioner forthwith
compassionate appointment for her son Parthasaradhi/the 2nd Petitioner
herein.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajay Khose
For Respondents : Mr.K.Moorthy
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
ORDER
Petitioners have come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the
impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Respondent in Memo
No.572/PaPi (Pori)/1/Ma.Po.Ka./2019, and for a consequential direction to
the Respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the 2nd Petitioner
herein.
2. According to the 1st Petitioner herein, her husband Late
G.Kannan, who was working as a Driver in the Respondent Corporation died
on 17.02.2014, while he was in service. It is seen that, the Respondent
Corporation, by an order dated 27.03.2014, removed the 1st Petitioner's
husband's name from the Roll of their Corporation, due to which, the
Petitioners are unable to get terminal benefits of the deceased. It is further
stated by the 1st Petitioner that, only by an order dated 17.11.2016, the
Respondent Corporation sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the
amount payable under the Family Benefit Fund Scheme and only from
09.11.2017, Petitioners were paid family pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
3. It is seen that, the 1st Petitioner made representation to the
Respondent seeking to provide compassionate appointment to her son, the 2nd
Petitioner herein, on 08.03.2017, followed by a reminder dated 27.01.2020.
However, the Respondent, vide order dated 28.08.2019 rejected the
Petitioners' request for compassionate appointment.
4. It is seen that, the 1st Petitioner's husband died on 17.02.2014.
Though the 1st Petitioner claims to have made oral representations to the
Respondent, she has made a written representation to the Respondent only on
08.03.2017, which is not within the stipulated period of three years. While
considering the claim for employment on compassionate ground, the Apex
Court, in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and
others reported in (2011 (4) SCC 209), has discussed about the factors
that have to be borne in mind. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"20. Thus while considering a claim for
employment on compassionate ground, the following
factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in
the absence of rules of regulations issued by the
Government or a public authority. The request is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
considered strictly in accordance with the governing
scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any
authority to make compassionate appointment de-hors
the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate
employment must be preferred without undue delay and
has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground
is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on
account of the death or medical invalidation of the
bread-winner while in service. Therefore,
compassionate employment cannot be granted as a
matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the
financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated
employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity,
as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible
only to one of the dependants of the
deceased/incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse,
son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such
appointments should be only to the lowest category that
is Class III and IV posts."
5. Nothing prevented the 1st Petitioner from making an Application
seeking compassionate appointment within three years from the date of her
husband's death. Even though the delay in making the representation appears
to be short of less than a month's time, admittedly, no Application has been
made within the stipulated period of three years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
6. Compassionate appointment shall not be considered as a
backdoor entry and it is based on rules, regulations, guidelines and
Government Orders. However, it should be remembered that
compassionate appointment is not an usual recruitment process and
the candidates seeking such appointment will have to satisfy all the
requirements contemplated under the Rules with regard to age,
qualification, etc, but however, it is subject to relaxation depending
upon the circumstances of each case.
7. As the Petitioners herein have not made an Application
within the stipulated period, they are not eligible to the relief sought
for in this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected
W.M.P.No.4919 of 2021 is closed.
26.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,
Pallavam Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
W.P.No.4333 of 2021
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
