Madras High Court
Veerakumar vs The Chief Minister Grievance Cell on 8 January, 2021
W.P.No.16760 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.16760 of 2014
&
MP.No.1 of 2015
Veerakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chief Minister Grievance Cell,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2013 within a short time frame fixed
by the Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam, GA
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16760 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2015
ORDER
The prayer made in this Writ Petition is to direct the second
respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2013
within a short time to be fixed by this Court.
2.According to the Petitioner, his father Thirugnanam was working as
a Driver in Vellakovil Panchayat Union and he died on 30.03.1985 while he
was in service. One Mageswari gave problem as if she is the legal heir of
the deceased Thirugnanam, which compelled the petitioner to file a suit in
O.S.No.630 of 2007, which was dismissed by the District Munsif Court,
Karur. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred AS.No.65/2011,
which by judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned Sub
Judge, Karur, was allowed and the petitioner and his mother were declared
as legal heirs of the deceased Thirugnanam. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 26.08.2013 to the second respondent
seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which was not considered
till date. Hence, this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16760 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2015
3.Upon notice, the second respondent filed a detailed counter
affidavit, wherein, it is inter alia stated that according to the entries in the
service register of the deceased employee, the pensionary benefit was
sanctioned to one Mageswari, who is the wife of the deceased employee. It
is further stated therein that as per the Government orders in existence
compassionate appointment will be provided to the legal heirs of the
deceased Government Servant, only if the legal heirs of the deceased
Government Servant submitted their application to the competent authority
within 3 years from the date of death of Government Servant, whereas the
petitioner submitted the representation seeking compassionate appointment,
after a lapse of 28 years from the date of death of his father and hence, he is
not eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground. Stating so, his
representation was rejected, which was also communicated to the petitioner.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials brought on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16760 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2015
5.Admittedly, the petitioner made representation seeking appointment
on compassionate ground, belatedly, that too, after a lapse of 28 years from
the date of death of his father. Whereas, the Government Order is very clear
that the application seeking compassionate appointment should be made
within a period of three years from the date of death of the Government
servant. When such being the position, this Court is of the opinion that the
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be made after the lapse of a
period specified in the rules, as it is not a vested right to exercise at any time
in future. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner's representation seeking such
appointment is perfectly right and the same warrants no interference.
6.At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention the observation of the
Supreme Court in Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs and
others v. Prabhat Singh [(2012) 13 SCC 412] that “the Court should not
fall prey to any sympathy syndrome of issue direction for compassionate
appointment dehors prescribed norms”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16760 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2015
7.In such view of the matter, this writ petition sans merits and is
accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
petition is closed.
08.01.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
av
To
1. The Chief Minister Grievance Cell,
Secretariate, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16760 of 2014 & MP.No.1 of 2015
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
av
W.P.No.16760 of 2014
&
MP.No.1 of 2015
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
