Madras High Court

G.Mahendran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 January, 2021

Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in
Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 29.01.2021

Coram:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

G.Mahendran,
S/o Late Govindasamy .. Appellant

Vs.

1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Head of Forest Force,
No.1, Genies Road,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai-15.

3. The District Forest Officer,
Interfaced Forest Division (IFF),
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

4. The District Forest Officer,
District Forest Division,

Page No.1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in
Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

Salem, Salem District. .. Respondents

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 21.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition in W.P.No.26734 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

For appellant : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For respondents: Mr.S.Prabhu, Addl.G.P.

JUDGMENT

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Subbiah,J)

The petitioner before the Writ Court is the appellant herein. This

Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated

21.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition in

W.P.No.26734 of 2018 on the file of this Court, in and by which, the

learned Single Judge had dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the

appellant/writ petitioner to quash the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the

fourth respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the

appellant/writ petitioner as Forest Watcher or any other suitable post in the

Page No.2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

fourth respondent-Forest Division in order to protect his family livelihood

forthwith.

2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is as follows:

(a) The appellant's father G.Govindasamy was appointed as Plot

Watcher on 16.02.1982 by the District Forest Officer, Interfaced Forestry

Division, Dharmapurai (third respondent). He was working originally in

Uthangarai Interfaced Forestry Range of the third respondent-Division and

thereafter, from 17.07.2004 till his death, he was working with the fourth

respondent-Division. Due to sudden illness, the appellant/writ petitioner's

father died in harness on 17.05.2010. The appellant is qualified in D.M.E.,

which he registered in the Employment Exchange. In view of the death of

the father of the appellant/writ petitioner, the appellant's mother, namely

Rani approached the fourth respondent on 27.12.2010 for the appointment

of the appellant/writ petitioner on compassionate grounds and also for

family pension to the appellant's mother. Thereafter, another application

was also made to the respondents on 23.01.2012.

(b) Though the appellant's father worked with the respondents'

Forest Department for more than 28 years, yet, the appellant's case for

Page No.3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

compassionate appointment was not considered. Hence, the appellant earlier

filed W.P.No.39927 of 2016 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct

the respondents to appoint him as Forest Watcher or in any suitable post in

the Forest Department of the fourth respondent-Division under

compassionate grounds in order to protect his family livelihood forthwith

and the said W.P.No.39927 of 2016 was allowed, vide common order dated

01.02.2016.

to the second respondent herein to consider his employment in the Forest

Department under compassionate grounds. Curiously, the fourth respondent

had rejected the appellant's application on 26.04.2018 on the ground that the

appellant/writ petitioner had not applied within three years from the date of

death of his father. The said rejection order dared 26.04.2018 passed by the

fourth respondent, according to the appellant/writ petitioner, is totally

against his application dated 23.01.2012 and also without application of

mind.

3. Challenging the said order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the

Page No.4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

fourth respondent, the appellant had filed the Writ Petition, which was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.03.2019 in

W.P.No.26734 of 2018, against which, the present Writ Appeal is filed by

the appellant.

4. It is relevant to quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order under

challenge passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26734 of 2018,

dated 21.03.2019:

"2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Sri.G.Mahendran was appointed as Plot Watcher, during the year 1982 and died on 17.05.2010, while he was in service. However, no application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was submitted within a period of three years as contemplated in the scheme of compassionate appointment.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that a representation dated 27.12.2010 is filed in page No.11 of the typed set of papers. However, there is no acknowledgement or any other proof issued by the respondents referring the said representation. In the absence of any acknowledgement or proof, the

Page No.5/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

representation dated 27.12.2010, which is stated to have been submitted by the writ petitioner's mother, cannot be trusted upon. The petitioner submitted an application dated 23.06.2014 seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds and the said application was considered and rejected on 26.04.2018 on the ground that the application seeking for compassionate appointment has been made after a lapse of three years from the date of death of the deceased Government employee."

5. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition mainly on

the reason that there is no acknowledgement or any other proof issued by

the respondents in respect of the application seeking for compassionate

appointment, which according to the learned Single Judge, would show that

the appellant/writ petitioner had not submitted the application within three

years from the date of death of the deceased Government employee. The

further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is

that originally, the writ petitioner submitted application on 27.12.2010 and

Page No.6/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

thereafter, within a period of nearly one and a half year, again on

23.01.2012, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted another application

through his mother. The learned counsel further contended that a reference

was also made about the latest representation, dated 23.01.2012 in the

affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The said representation dated

23.01.2012 was duly received by the respondent(s) affixing their seal. To

substantiate this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner had also produced a copy of the said representation, dated

23.01.2012, which is stated to have been sent by the appellant's mother on

his behalf. This representation/application contains the seal of the District

Forest Office, Salem Forest Division, dated 23.01.2012. Therefore, the

learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner

had submitted the application on 23.01.2012 seeking for compassionate

appointment, which is within three years from the date of death of his father

being 17.05.2010. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that a

direction may be given to the respondents to consider the said

representation/application, dated 23.01.2012 and to pass appropriate orders.

6. Opposing the above submissions, the learned Additional

Page No.7/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the said

representation, dated 23.01.2012 which is stated to have contained the seal,

had not been produced before the learned Single Judge, and therefore, now,

at this appellate stage, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot rely upon the

same and thus, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. Be that as it may. The appellant/writ petitioner has now

produced a copy of the said representation, dated 23.01.2012, which

contains the seal of the District Forest Office, Salem Forest Division,

Salem-7, dated 23.01.2012. This shows that the appellant/writ petitioner's

mother, on behalf of the appellant, had submitted the said representation,

dated 23.01.2012 within three years from the date of death of the appellant's

father being 17.05.2010. It is trite law that the appeal is continuation of the

original proceedings, and hence, it is open for the appellant to produce the

relevant materials even at the appellate stage for consideration by the Court.

9. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to consider the claim

of the appellant/writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits with

regard to providing compassionate appointment, within a period of four

Page No.8/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No

costs.

                                                                          (R.P.S.J)     (S.S.K.J)
                                                                                 29.01.2021
                     Index:Yes/no
                     Speaking Orders: Yes
                     cs


                     To
                     1. Government of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of Forest Force, No.1, Genies Road, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

3. The District Forest Officer, Interfaced Forest Division (IFF), Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

4. The District Forest Officer, District Forest Division, Salem, Salem District.

Page No.9/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Judgment dated 29.01.2021 in Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

R.SUBBIAH, J

and

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J

Writ Appeal No.1552 of 2019

29.01.2021

Page No.10/10