Madras High Court
N.Janaki vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 7 January, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
and W.M.P.(MD).No.13200 of 2020
N.Janaki ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Tax Department,
Secretariate, Chennai – 9.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division,
Madurai – 20.
3.The Joint Commissioner (Enforcement)
Commercial Taxes,
Madruai – 20. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records connected with
the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.A 10/3076/2015
dated 19.09.2018 and in Na.Ka.No.A 10/3076/2015 dated 03.10.2020 which
was enclosed in the letter of the 3rd respondent communicated to the petitioner
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
in Na.Ka.No.A 4 /1230/2020 dated 12.10.2020 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for appointment on Compassionate Grounds to the petitioner's
daughter N.Swetha and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
Compassionate Ground to the petitioner's daughter in any one of the suitable
post considering the qualification of the petitioner's daughter.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan
For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.A 10/3076/2015 dated 19.09.2018 and in Na.Ka.No.A 10/3076/2015
dated 03.10.2020 which was enclosed in the letter of the 3 rd respondent
communicated to the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.A 4 /1230/2020 dated 12.10.2020
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on Compassionate
Grounds to the petitioner's daughter N.Swetha and consequently to direct the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
Compassionate Ground to the petitioner's daughter in any one of the suitable
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
post considering the qualification of the petitioner's daughter.
2.Heard Mr.S.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing
for the respondents.
3.The petitioner's husband, while working as an Deputy Commercial
Tax Officer in the Commercial Tax Department, died due to Blood Cancer on
11.04.2011. The petitioner had made an application to the respondents on
05.06.2013, seeking for compassionate appointment to her daughter, who was
a minor at the time of his father's death. She attained the age of majority in the
year 2020. In the meantime, it is claimed that the petitioner had made three
other representations on 30.09.2015, 26.12.2016 and 16.09.2020, seeking for
compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter. By considering the
applications of the petitioner dated 05.06.2013, 08.06.2015 and 01.10.2015,
the present impugned order, dated 19.09.2018 came to be passed by the
respondents, rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, on the ground
that, on the date of completion of the 3-year period for making an application
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
for compassionate appointment, the petitioner's daughter was a minor and
therefore, the petitioner's daughter was ineligible to be considered for
compassionate appointment, in view of the G.O (Ms) No.155, Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 10.12.2017. Challenging the said order
dated 19.09.2018, the present writ petition has been filed.
4.The issues revolving around the procedure for compassionate
appointment were considered in various writ petitions before this Court, as
well as by the Honourable Supreme Court. Among such dictums laid in these
judgments, it has been held by a Honourable Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Chief Engineer/Personnel, TNEB Vs. S.Suder reported in
MANU/TN/0635/2009, that an application for compassionate appointment can
be made by a person within 3 years from the date on which he/she attains
majority. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim
Hussain Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006 (9) SCC 195, has also held that
when a Widow has submitted an application in time, the Authorities should
consider such application expeditiously and grant an appointment to the minor
who had attained majority owing to the pendency of the application.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
5.In the present case, though the petitioner's daughter was a minor at the
time of her father's death, the petitioner/mother had made an application
within 3 years from the date of the death of her husband, seeking
compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter. By applying the
propositions laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it could be said that the last
application given by the petitioner on 16.09.2020 is in continuance of the
earlier application made by herself on 05.06.2013 and since the petitioner's
last application dated 16.09.2020 was within a period of 3 years from the date
of her daughter's attaining majority, the respondents are not justified in
rejecting the petitioner's application, on the ground that the petitioner's
daughter was a minor within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of
death of the employee. As such, the impugned order itself cannot be
sustained.
6.In the result, the impugned order passed by the passed by the 2 nd
respondent in Na.Ka.A 10/3076/2015 dated 19.09.2018 and in Na.Ka.No.A
10/3076/2015 dated 03.10.2020, which was enclosed in the letter of the 3rd
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
respondent communicated to the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.A 4 /1230/2020 dated
12.10.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
Compassionate Grounds to the petitioner's daughter N.Swetha are hereby
quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for
reconsideration. The second respondent shall take into consideration the
observations made by this Court in the present order and accordingly, pass
fresh orders atleast within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. While passing such orders, the second respondent shall
not quote the three year limitation period for filing the application, as a bar or
state that the petitioner was a minor during the check period of three years
from the date of the employee's death.
7.The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
Note: In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Tax Department,
Secretariate, Chennai – 9.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division,
Madurai – 20.
3.The Joint Commissioner (Enforcement)
Commercial Taxes,
Madruai – 20.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH,J.
TM
W.P.(MD) No.15755 of 2020
07.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
