Madras High Court
R. Muthu Barathi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 3 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No. 787 of 2021
and C.M.P(MD).No. 3540 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
R. Muthu Barathi ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Saint George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Engineer,
Water Resources Organization
Cum Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organisation,
State Ground and Surface Water resources data center,
Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water resources Organization,
Special Project – Circle,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Special Project Division – IV,
Kanchipuram District.
6. The Superintending Engineer,
Water Sources Organization,
Public Works Department,
No.46, North Chitirai Street,
Madurai – 1. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 05.08.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 13817 of 2014.
For Appellant : M/s.Akilandeswari
for M/s.T. Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.A.K. Manickam
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard M/s.Akilandeswari for Mr.Lajapathi Roy, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M. Manickam, learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondent Government.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
2. This Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order
dated 05.08.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2014 passed by the learned
Single Judge of Judge of this Court.
3. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the
order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 14.06.2014 rejecting her
application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After going
through the impugned order, we fully subscribe to the findings rendered by
the learned Single Bench on the legal position, namely, no person has got
the vested right to seek for appointment on compassionate ground and an
appointment on compassionate ground can be granted only in accordance
with the Scheme formulated by the Government or the Employer.
4. In certain cases, Courts have carved out an exception by noting the
facts of each case. We proposed to do so in the instant case, by taking note
of the peculiar circumstances. The father of the appellant died in harness on
24.11.2004, when he was working as a Driver in the respondent
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
Department. The appellant and her mother are the two legal heirs. The
appellant was 12 years of age and her mother was 41 years old. The
appellant’s mother submitted a representation on 09.08.2007 clearly
mentioning that the appellant is undergoing her school education and she is
in the 9th standard, studying in the Government High School, Kovilpatti and
requested appointment to be granted to her on compassionate ground by
keeping the application in the wait list.
5. The question would be whether such a request was maintainable or
not? Under normal circumstances, such applications are not maintainable.
Therefore, it was well open to the respondent Department to reject the
representation and inform the appellant’s mother. But, they did not do so
and the application was kept pending till 2014 and by order dated
14.06.2014, the application, followed by the representations given, has
been rejected on the ground that, as on 09.08.2007, the appellant had not
completed 18 years of age. In other words, within three years from the date
of demise of her father, the appellant had not completed 18 years of age.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
6. Under normal circumstances, we would have accepted the stand
taken by the respondent Department. But, in the peculiar facts of the
present case, we proposed to take a slightly different view. We find that the
application given by the mother in the year 2007, was seeking
compassionate appointment for her daughter/appellant. It was clearly
mentioned that she was studying 9th standard and was 11 years of age and
requested the application to be kept in the wait list. Till 2014, neither the
appellant nor her mother have been informed about the fate of their
representation. Therefore, considering the economic background, we can
safely conclude that the appellant and her mother were led to believe that
the representation was kept in the wait list. This is fortified because the
application was forwarded to the Higher Authority by the Superintending
Engineer by communication, dated 27.08.2007. Thus, we are of the view
that, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would require a
different approach. For such reasons, we are inclined to grant relief to the
appellant.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
6. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order, dated
05.08.2019 in W.P(MD) No.13817 of 2014 passed by the learned Single
Bench of this Court and the impugned order, dated 14.06.2014 in Letter
No.E2(4)/3990/2014 passed by the 4th respondent are set aside. The
respondent Department is directed to offer an appointment to the appellant
to any entry level post in the respondent Department, within a period of four
(04) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. It is made
clear that the Judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
03.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ksa/ sts
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.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Public Works Department,
Saint George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Principal Chief Engineer,
Water Resources Organization
Cum Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organisation,
State Ground and Surface Water resources data center,
Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water resources Organization,
Special Project – Circle,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Special Project Division – IV,
Kanchipuram District.
6. The Superintending Engineer,
Water Sources Organization,
Public Works Department,
No.46, North Chitirai Street,
Madurai – 1.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.787 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
ksa/sts
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD) No.787 of 2021
Dated:
03.06.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
