Madras High Court
S.Manivannan vs The Chief Engineer on 21 January, 2021
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
and W.P.M.P.No.43812 of 2004
S.Manivannan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Chief Engineer
Southern Command, Pune.
2. The Chief Engineer, Chennai Zone,
Island Grounds, Chennai.
3. The Commander Works Engineer
Pallavan Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record on
the file of the second respondent in Proceedings 10246/GEN/3923/EIA and
dated 12.01.2002 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, irregular and
without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent to consider the case
of the petitioner on compassionate ground based on the representation made on
25.01.1999.
For Petitioner : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
for Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarifed mandamus, to
call for the record on the file of the second respondent in Proceedings
10246/GEN/3923/EIA and dated 12.01.2002 and quash the same as illegal,
incompetent, irregular and without jurisdiction and further direct the first
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground
based on the representation made on 25.01.1999.
2. The petitioner's father, one Sundararaj was appointed in the office of
the respondent in the year 1964, he had an unblemished service for more than
34 years, however all of a sudden, he passed away on 18.08.1998. He lastly
employed as Duftry in the Commander Works Engineer. Since the father of the
petitioner was the head of the family and he was the only bread winner of the
family, due to the sudden demise of the father of the petitioner, the family has
been put into great hardship. Therefore, in order to bail out the family from
indigent and penurious circumstances, the petitioner, who is the son of the
deceased employee sought for an appointment on compassionate ground from
the respondents, which plea since had been turned out in the impugned order,
dated 12.01.2002 challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
3. Heard Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner who would submit that, still the family is in indigent and penurious
circumstances, therefore if at all any vacancy still available, a direction can be
given to the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner.
4. First of all, in order to appreciate the reasons stated in the impugned
order for rejecting the plea of the petitioner, the order impugned is extracted
hereunder :
"Your application, dated 25 Jan 99 for a
compassionate appointment under the Scheme of
Employment Assistance to deserving dependents
of deceased Govt employees for the post of
Mazdoor has been considered by the Competent
Authority in accordance with the various policy
instructions of the Govt of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training and of the
Ministry of Defence Office Memoranda issued
from time to time which are currently in vogue.
2. Keeping in mind the above mentioned policy
instructions as well as the various Rulings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject matter of
the Competent Authority, duly assisted by a Board
of Officers, has examined in detail the overall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
interse relative merit of your case as per laid down
norms among all such applicants who are
registered with this Headquarters and finalised /
approved your position in the overall order of
merit.
3. The very limited number of vacancies as per the
DOP & T Policy instructions available with this
Headquarters is being offered to all those
deserving candidates strictly in accordance with
their overall order of merit and your position in
the overall interse relative merit is beyond the
available number of very limited vacancies.
Therefore it is deeply regretted that in spite of our
best of intentions to help you, we are unable to
offer you a suitable post under the said Scheme for
want of adequate vacancies.
4. In view of foregoing, it is regretted that your
case for a compassionate appointment is closed
strictly in accordance with the various policy
instructions of the Govt of India and the various
Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. Please acknowledge receipt."
5. This rejection was made in the year 2002, therefore after 18 years
anything could be survived in this issue and still the petitioner can pursue the
matter and pursuant to which, he would be entitled to get any direction by way
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
of mandamus by this Court to the respondent to consider the request of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment, is the issue.
6. In this context, this Court reminds that, time and again Courts have
taken the view consistently, with regard to the issue of compassionate
appointment.
7. Various Government and Governmental authorities framed schemes
for compassionate appointment which in fact are in violation or derogation
of the regular recruitment or service regulation and rules being implemented
by such authorities.
8. Insofar as the compassionate appointment is concerned, it is mainly
envisaged only to bail out the family, who has been left in lurch by the sudden
demise of the head of the family or the sole breadwinner of the family, from
the penurious circumstances, where the family is being put in.
9. Therefore, having this avowed object in mind only, those schemes are
framed by various authorities. While interpreting this kind of schemes, Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India as well as this Court have taken consistent view that,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
only in order to provide immediate solace to the family of the deceased
employee to bail out the family from indigent circumstances, compassionate
appointment scheme is framed and being implemented. Therefore, after very
long years, it cannot be expected that, the gesture of compassionate
appointment can be shown by the employer to such family.
10. In this context, recently a Full Bench of this Court, before whom
issues had been referred to, as to how the compassionate appointment can be
made and what kind of indulgence can be shown by the Law Courts in this
issue.
11. The Full Bench Judgment made in W.P.(MD).No.7016 of 2011 etc.,
batch consisting of Hon'ble Chief Justice and other two Hon'ble Judges of this
Court, dated 11.03.2020 has given a complete answer to all these questions
which has been also followed by a Division Bench of this Court of Hon'ble
Chief Justice and other learned Judge in W.A.No.237 of 2020, dated
01.09.2020.
12. For easy reference, the order of the Division Bench referred to above
is quoted hereunder :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
"Having heard Mr.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel
for the appellant and keeping in view the Full
Bench decision, which has been delivered in W.P.
(MD) No.7016 of 2011 (Nandini Dev vs. Secretary
to Government) dated 11.03.2020, the relief prayed
for by the appellant cannot be extended. We may
gainfully extract paragraphs 31 and 32 of the
judgment answering the reference as follows:-
“31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7
SCC 192, has held that when the very
purpose of compassionate appointment is
to see that the family gets immediate
relief, then the application by the
dependant of the deceased employee filed
after he attains majority cannot be
entertained. Considering a belated
application will be contrary to the scheme
framed by the Government and will be
also contrary to the judgments of the
Supreme Court. 32. In view of the above,
the reference is answered as under:- a)
Appointment on compassionate basis has
to be strictly followed in accordance with
the relevant G.O.'s or the scheme that has
been framed by the employer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
Any deviation from the scheme is not
permissible.
b) In view of the above the judgment of
the Division Bench in E.Ramasamy Vs.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the
Secretary to Government Vs. Renugadevi,
lays down the correct law and the
judgment of the Division Bench dated
06.08.2013 in A.Kamatchi Vs. The
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
which is contrary to the scheme framed by
the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board does not
lay down the correct proposition.
Reference is answered accordingly.”
2.It was also further indicated in paragraph 13 of
the judgment rendered by the Chief Justice and
Abdul Quddhose, J., as follows:-
“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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
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."
In view of the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the
Full Bench, the relief prayed for by the appellant is
unacceptable. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly,
consigned to records. No costs."
13. If we apply the said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench,
of course following various Supreme Court Judgments in this regard as well
as, the Division Bench referred to above, in the present facts of the case, this
Court is not in a position to issue any direction by way of mandamus as has
been sought for by this petitioner and the reasons cited in the impugned order,
dated 12.01.2002 cannot be said to be an unjustifiable reason. Therefore this
Court feel that, no plausible reason could be found out from this petition to
successfully challenge the impugned order and the consequential relief.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails, therefore it is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. While dismissing this writ petition, this Court observes that, it is
open to the petitioner to make a request to the respondents afresh and establish
before the respondents that, still the family of the petitioner is in indigent
circumstances and if that request satisfies the respondents, it is open to them to
consider the same and pass necessary orders on merits and in accordance with
law as early as possible.
21.01.2021
tsvn
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
To
1. The Chief Engineer
Southern Command, Pune.
2. The Chief Engineer, Chennai Zone,
Island Grounds, Chennai.
3. The Commander Works Engineer
Pallavan Salai, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
tsvn
W.P.No.36481 of 2004
21-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
