Madras High Court
P.Jegadeesan vs The Joint Director (Personnel) on 20 January, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
and
W.M.P(md)No.8345 of 2016
P.Jegadeesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Director (Personnel)
Directorate of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai Education District,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Malaipatti
Virudhunagar District.
4.P.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.
3528/A1/2013 dated 29.07.2015 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner for
the post of compassionate appointment in the respondent department
within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.M.Marichelliah Prabhu
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : No appearance
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, to call for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in
Pa.Mu.No.3528/A1/2013, dated 29.07.2015 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the
petitioner for compassionate appointment in the respondent Department.
2.The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as a
Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School. On 03.01.2001
the petitioner's father died, while he was on duty. The petitioner's father
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
had two wives. After the demise of the petitioner's mother, his father
married the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner is the only son
through the first wife of the deceased. Out of the wedlock with the fourth
respondent, the petitioner's father had two daughters viz., P.Manicka
Meena and P.Karpagavalli. After the demise of the petitioner's father,
dispute arose between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, with
regard to the pensionary benefits and other family benefits. Therefore,
they have entered into an agreement on 08.10.2001 among themselves
that the fourth respondent will get all the service benefits of the
petitioner's father and the petitioner will get the compassionate
appointment. Pursuant to which, the fourth respondent has given “No
objection Certificate” to the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner
has made an application on 26.07.2001 for appointment on
compassionate ground. Though the petitioner has made several
representations to the authority for getting compassionate appointment,
no action has been taken. In such circumstances, after receiving all the
benefits of the petitioner's father, the fourth respondent sent a letter to the
second respondent on 15.10.2012 stating that the petitioner is working in
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
one London Rubber Company, Virudhunagar and thereby earning Rs.
25,000/- per month and his wife is also getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per
month and therefore, the fourth respondent wanted the compassionate
appointment to her daughters. On the basis of the letter given by the
fourth respondent, the second respondent has passed the impugned order
dated 19.07.2013, in Na.Ka.No.108/A1/2011. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P(MD).No.13936 of 2013. This Court, by order dated 05.02.2015,
allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the second respondent
therein has passed the impugned order only based on the allegation made
by the fourth respondent therein, without ascertaining the veracity of
such statement or by conducting any enquiry with regard to the
employment in the private concern viz., London Rubber Company.
Therefore, again the matter was remanded back to the second respondent
therein. Even after the order of this Court, the second respondent, based
on the documents filed by the fourth respondent, has passed the present
impugned order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
though the initial application made by petitioner well in time, which was
rejected by the second respondent on the ground that there was a dispute
between the petitioner and his stepmother viz., the fourth respondent and
thereby earlier rejection order came to be passed. He further submitted
that the petitioner has obtained information from the Inspector of
Factories with regard to the existence of London Rubber Company, in
which, the Factory Inspector issued a letter stating that there is no such
company in Virudhunagar District. Thereafter, the petitioner also
obtained a certificate from the Revenue Officials with regard to the non-
employment. Without considering all those documents, the second
respondent had rejected the petitioner's representation. Therefore, he
prays for allowing the writ petition.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that after the demise of the
petitioner's father, dispute arose between the petitioner and the fourth
respondent, who is the second wife of the petitioner's father and
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
thereafter, they have entered into an agreement on 08.10.2001. Pursuant
to which, the petitioner has made an application, after 12 years of the
death of his father, to the Chief Minister cell and not before the
competent authority and the said application was forwarded to the second
respondent. On receipt of such application, the same was rejected based
on the allegation of the fourth respondent that the petitioner was working
in a private company. Following the order of this Court, the petitioner's
application was processed. For compliance of the order of this Court,
London Rubber Company (T.T.K.Protective Devices Ltd.,) was examined
as one of the witnesses and deposed that the petitioner was working in
boiling unit of London Rubber Company and receiving salary and other
benefits. Based on which, the present impugned order was passed.
Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as per
G.O.(PT) No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated
02.05.1981 as well as the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, a
consolidated scheme was framed in G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, in which, the scheme
specifically prescribed for providing compassionate appointment if any
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
person of the deceased Government Servant's family is in regular
employment in Government/Private enterprises, are not entitled for
compassionate appointment.
5.In view of the above said G.O., the petitioner is not entitled for
getting compassionate appointment. Hence, the prayer sought for in the
present writ petition cannot be granted and the same stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
To
1.Joint Director (Personnel)
Directorate of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai Education District,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Malaipatti
Virudhunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Ns
W.P.(MD)No.10755 of 2016
and
W.M.P(md)No.8345 of 2016
20.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
