Kalyani vs The State
2021 Latest Caselaw 1963 Mad

                                                                             WA.No.131 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 29.01.2021

                                                      CORAM :

                              The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                         AND
                            The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY


                                                 W.A.No.131 of 2021


                     Kalyani                                                .. Appellant

                                                         -vs-

                     1.The State
                        Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Govt.,
                       Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
                       Chennai-9.

                     2.The Joint Commissioner,
                       Revenue Administration,
                       Chepauk, Chennai-5.

                     3.The District Collector,
                       Karur District, Karur.

                     4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                       Karur District.                                      .. Respondents


                               Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
                     order dated 27.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.33091 of 2016 on the file of
                     this Court.


                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               WA.No.131 of 2021




                                   For Appellant            : Mrs.P.Krishnaveni

                                   For Respondents          : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
                                                              State Government Pleader


                                                      JUDGMENT

(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

However much the appellant's cause may evoke the sympathy of

the Court, unless there is a legal right, an exception cannot be made

to tinker with the general scheme of things. This appellant's husband

died when she was aged 26. She had a two-year-old son and gave

birth, less than a month after her husband's death, to a daughter who

was otherwise-abled.

2.The appellant's husband died in the year 1996. It appears that

the first representation made by the appellant for an appointment to

be granted on compassionate grounds to her was in the year 1999 and

she waited till her son to attain majority to further her perceived claim

to a compassionate appointment at this stage. What cannot be lost

sight of is that though the concerned employee died in the year 1996,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA.No.131 of 2021

the writ petition for assertion of the perceived right was filed in the

year 2016. It is such petition which came to be rejected by the

judgment and order impugned dated January 27, 2020. There is little

scope to interfere with the judgment and order impugned herein,

particularly as the judgment takes relevant considerations into account

and deals with the matter in the appropriate perspective. It must be

remembered that compassionate appointment is an exception to the

general rule and the justification for such exception is to provide the

distressed family with immediate relief upon the death of the sole

bread-earner.

3.Law journals abound with numerous cases that authoritatively

instruct that upon the distressed family tiding over the crisis for a

substantial period of time, it can no longer pursue a case for

compassionate appointment and, at times, where the employers have

created a special ground for compassionate appointment which is

made available years after the death of the original employee, such

schemes have been struck down by Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA.No.131 of 2021

4.There is no doubt that the appellant herein must have faced

considerable difficulty in making ends meet to bring up her children

and to provide food for them. But once it is apparent that the

immediate crisis that the distressed family is plunged into has been

taken care of, the chance of obtaining an appointment on

compassionate ground no longer remains. The weak right to assert

and obtain compassionate appointment weakens by the day and the

month and the year and the longer the time from the date of the death

of the concerned employee, the less relevant the already weak right

becomes.

5.Since the case made out by the appellant herein was for an

employment for the appellant's son who was a minor at the time of the

death of the original employee and since there was no scheme of the

employer providing any special consideration for members of the

family of a deceased employee who died in harness, the learned Single

Bench appropriately dealt with the matter, particularly since the

petition had been filed some twenty years after the death of the

original employee. The order impugned does not call for any

interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA.No.131 of 2021

W.A.No.131 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no order as to

costs.

                                                                (S.B., CJ.)      (S.K.R., J.)
                                                                          29.01.2021

                     Index          : Yes

                     sra

                     To

1.The Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

3.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA.No.131 of 2021

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

(sra)

W.A.No.131 of 2021

29.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/