Madras High Court
R.Vishnupriyan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 July, 2021
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 23.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.2182 of 2020
R.Vishnupriyan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Programme Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Social Welfare,
2nd Floor, Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
3.The Child Development Project Officer,
Project-III, Kandamangalam Union,
Villupuram District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating
to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
A.Mu.Sa.Ka.No.31700/Niru.4(3)/2017 dated 07.02.2018 and to quash
the same and consequently directing the respondents to pass orders of
appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post,
with all consequential and other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Government Counsel
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The petitioner's mother, while employed as a Rural Welfare
Officer Grade-II in the office of the Child Development Project,
Kandamangalam Union died in service on 26.03.1998. The petitioner
herein is her son, who claims to have given an application seeking for
compassionate appointment on 19.05.2010.
3. Incidentally, after the petitioner's mother had died, his grand
mother had made an application on 02.01.2001 seeking for
compassionate appointment on behalf of the petitioner, at which point of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
time, the petitioner was aged about 8 years, since he was born on
17.04.1992, as per the petitioner's transfer certificate.
4. The second respondent herein, through the impugned order
dated 07.02.2018, had rejected the petitioner's request, on the ground that
the petitioner was a minor when the 3 year period from the date of death
of the employee had expired and since the application was belatedly
made after 12 years, it is unacceptable.
5. The issue as to whether, the respondents are justified in claiming
that an application requires to be made within a period of 3 years, when
such an applicant is a minor at the relevant point of time, came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Division of this Court in the case of
S.Velraj Vs. The Superintendent Engineer and another and the Hon'ble
Division Bench, in its order dated 16.12.2015 passed in W.A.No.1400 of
2011, had set aside the order of rejection, by holding that the requirement
for making an application by a minor at the relevant point of time, is not
justifiable. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
"3. It is admitted fact that the employee died
on 19.03.1992, leaving behind four children and at
that time, the appellant is the eldest son, aged about
12 years. If he applied for appointment on
compassionate ground at that time, when he was 12
years, his application would have been rejected on
the ground that he was a minor and, therefore, on
attaining majority, the appellant rightly applied for
appointment on compassionate ground. However
taking into consideration the plight of the family and
also the young age of the mother and other children,
it is a case where appointment on compassionate
ground has to be given. Three years limitation
cannot be applied in strait-jacket formula and each
and every case has to be approached differently,
based on the facts. Since the eldest son of the family
has rightly applied for appointment on
compassionate ground, on attaining majority, the
respondents have to consider the appellant's
application for appointment on compassionate
ground.
4. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is
allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge
and also the order of rejection for appointment on
compassionate ground are set aside and the matter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
is remanded to the first respondent for fresh
disposal, in the light of the judgment passed by this
Court. Such exercise shall be completed within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. No costs."
6. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of
C.Muthulakshmi and another Vs. The District Collector, Krishnagiri
District and two others passed in W.P.No.30563 of 2016, wherein this
Court has also held that the application by a minor within 3 years after
becoming a major, would be maintainable, particularly, when the mother
had made an application within a period of 3 years from the date of death
of the Government employee.
7. In the instant case, it is submitted that the petitioner's grand
mother had made an application on 02.01.2001, which is within the
period of 3 years from the date of death of the employee. Hence, the
reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment, cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
8. Incidentally, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated
03.09.2020, which counter averments indicates that they have chosen to
process the petitioner's application for the purpose of granting
compassionate appointment. The only discrepancy pointed out in the
petitioner's application is that during the process of verification, the
respondents were of the view that the petitioner did not produce the
required original certificates pertaining to the legal heir certificate, Court
order pertaining to adoption, adoption documents, SSLC marksheet,
death certificate and no objection certificate. In paragraph 6 of the
counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that since the petitioner did
not produce the original certificates even after request, the Department of
Social Welfare was finding it difficult to process the request of the
petitioner with regard to compassionate appointment.
9. Apparently, the counter affidavit is to the effect that the
respondents have condoned their original claim in the impugned order
that the petitioner has belatedly made an application for compassionate
appointment. However, since a decision has now been taken to process
the petitioner's application and such process has now been hampered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
owing to non-production of original documents, it would be appropriate
to direct the petitioner to produce the required original certificates before
the respondents.
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is willing to produce the required original
documents before the authorities.
11. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the
counter affidavit that the petitioner's application could be processed if the
original documents are submitted and in the light of various decisions of
this Court that the respondents cannot deny compassionate appointment
either on the ground that the minor did not make an application within 3
years from the date of death of the employee or that the application made,
after the minor had become major, is belated, it would be appropriate to
direct the petitioner to submit all the original documents supporting his
claim for compassionate appointment with a consequential direction to
the respondents to consider his claim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
12. In the result, the impugned order passed by the second
respondent dated 07.02.2018 is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a
direction to the petitioner to submit all the required original documents to
the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, and on receipt of
such original documents, the second respondent shall consider the same,
in the light of the observations made by this Court and pass positive
orders granting an order of appointment on compassionate grounds to the
petitioner, atleast within a period of 3 months therefrom.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Programme Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director of Social Welfare,
2nd Floor, Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
3.The Child Development Project Officer,
Project-III, Kandamangalam Union,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk
W.P.No.1866 of 2020
and
W.M.P.No.2182 of 2020
23.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
