Madras High Court
The Director General vs R. Nagaraj on 3 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
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. 749 of 2020
and C.M.P(MD).No. 4322 of 2020
(Through Video Conference)
1. The Director General,
Highways Department,
Guindy, Chennai – 25.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Department,
Madurai Circle, Madurai District.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department, Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
R. Nagaraj ... Respondent/Petitioner
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 28.02.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 1186 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K. Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent : Mr.K.Ponnaiah,
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
*****
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned standing counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.K.Ponniah, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.
2. This Writ Appeal filed by the Director General, Highways
Department and three others is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2020
in W.P.(MD) No.1186 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed by the
respondent herein praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the
the appellants to consider his representation, dated 19.07.2019 in the light
of the earlier representation given by his mother, dated 28.08.2009 for
appointment of the respondent herein on compassionate ground either as
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
Office Watchman or Sweeper, within a stipulated time.
3. The learned Single Judge of this Court taking note of an order
passed in W.P.(MD) No.26343 of 2012, dated 23.11.2016 in the case of
M.Sathish Kumar Vs. the Director of School Education and Others, as
well as noting the facts of the case allowed the writ petition and issued a
direction to the appellants to issue an appointment order to the first
respondent on compassionate ground to the post which may be
proportionate to his qualification and also fixed the time frame within which
such appointment order should be issued. The Department is aggrieved by
the said order and they are on Appeal before us.
4. The learned standing counsel for the appelants contended that the
prayer sought for in the writ petition is not maintainable and the writ
petition was liable to be dismissed as the respondent/writ petitioner has not
challenged the order passed by the 3rd appellant, dated 06.05.2019 and the
prayer sought for is only for a Writ of Mandamus.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
5. We have heard Mr.K.Ponniah, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner on the above submission.
6. To fix the correctness of the said submission, we have carefully
perused the grounds raised by the writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition. From the said averments, we find that the writ
petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.1946 of 2019 praying for issuance
of a Writ of Mandamus to consider him for appointment on compassionate
ground in the entry level post either as Office Watchman or Sweeper in the
light of the letter of the 4th appellant, dated 18.09.2018 by considering his
representation. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated
08.02.2019 by directing the Appellant Department to consider the
representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. The Appellant Department did not comply with the
direction and therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner sent a legal notice
dated 12.06.2019 to the 1st appellant stating that he is contemplating of
initiating contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the order and
direction issued by this Court. Immediately thereafter, the respondent was
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
communicated with the order dated 06.05.2018 stated to have been passed
by the 3rd appellant. It may be true that the prayer sought for in the writ
petition is only for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. Nevertheless, the
correctness of the stand taken by the 3rd appellant in the order dated
06.05.2019 has been called in question in the writ petition and grounds have
been raised which was considered by the learned Single Bench of this
Court.
7. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the stand taken by the
appellants that the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground
that it was only a Writ of Mandamus.
8. The second contention raised by the learned standing counsel for
the appellants is that the application submitted by the respondent cannot be
considered in accordance with the Scheme formulated by the Government
for compassionate appointment in G.O.Ms No.18 Labour and Employment
(Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020 and the Scheme was already in vogue
because there is a time limit fixed, namely, three years from the date of
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
demise of the employee and admittedly, the respondent did not submit an
application within the said time limit and therefore, the Appellant
Department was right in not offering any employment to the respondent on
compassionate ground.
9. We have perused the material papers which were filed in the typed
set and we find that on 18.01.2008, the respondent’s father passed away
and he was aged about 45 years. At the time of his demise, he was working
as a 'Gang Coolie / Salai Paniyalar’. The respondent’s father died leaving
behind his mother Tmt.Jothi, his younger brother Balamurugan and his
younger sister Kaleeswari and himself as the four legal heirs. The
petitioner’s mother had filed the representation on 28.08.2009 wherein she
made a request that she may be granted an appointment on compassionate
ground or else such appointment may be granted to her son/ respondent
hereim. This application was not forwarded to the Authorities and by
proceedings dated 11.02.2010, the 2nd appellant by proceedings dated
11.02.2010 stated that the mother of the respondent having studied only
upto fourth standard, cannot be granted an appointment as 'Gang Coolie /
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
Salai Paniyalar’ because the minimum educational qualification is fifth
standard. The family appears to have been in a very indigenous
circumstances, therefore, the respondent’s mother continued to pursue her
claim and several representations have been submitted. In the meantime,
the petitioner also came to know that there were several vacancies in the
Appellant Department which was confirmed with a reply sent under the
Right to Information Act dated 20.04.2016. As mentioned in the
representation dated 28.08.2009, the respondent’s mother kept on
reiterating her request for grant of appointment to her son, namely, the
respondent herein and there were several representations made from the
year 2018 onwards. Since these representations were not considered, the
earlier writ petition was filed wherein a direction has been issued and the
request was held to be not feasible of consideration because the application
for compassionate appointment to the respondent/ son of the deceased
employee having not been made within a period of three years, cannot be
considered.
10. The learned standing counsel for the appellants as well as the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
learned counsel for the respondent both referred to G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour
and Employment Department, dated 23.01.2020, where comprehensive
guidelines have been issued by the Government for appointment on
compassionate ground. The salient features of the Scheme has been set out
in the said Government order, wherein, it is stated that the employment is to
be provided by relaxing the normal procedures of recruitment through
employment exchanges to the legal heirs of the Government servants, who
dies in harness, leaving his family in indigent circumstances. Further, it is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the order of
preference of the legal heirs, the son gets the first preference ahead of
unmarried daughter and ahead of the wife or husband of the deceased
Government employee.
11. The learned standing counsel for the Appellants is right in his
submission that no person can claim as a matter of right that he or she
should be appointed on compassionate ground, as the Scheme has been
deviced by the Government to help the needy legal heirs, whose lives are at
distress after the Government servant dies in harness. Thus, the underlined
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
test will be to take note of the facts and circumstances of each case. If the
representations given by the mother from the year 2016 to 2018 are
considered, which is beyond the period of three years, the appellant is
justified in stating that they cannot consider. But, however one important
fact is that as early as in August 2009, the respondent’s mother, who had
studied only up to 4th standard had made a request to offer employment to
her or to her son. She could not get accommodated as a 'Gang Coolie / Salai
Paniyalar’ because she did not have fifth standard educational qualification.
The Appellant Department states that when she was offered the post of
Sweeper/Watchman, she refused to accept it. We do not find any record to
show that the respondent’s mother has outrightly rejected the offer. In any
event, the lady had to take care of three children, probably was of the view
that she is not suitable to the post of Watchman.
12. Thus, considering the hard facts, the learned Writ Court has
moulded the reliefand took into consideration the conduct of the parties how
the first application dated 28.08.2009 being well within a period of three
years can be taken into consideration and the respondent can be granted
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
appointment on compassionate ground.
13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
considered view that the order and direction issued by the learned Single
Bench need not be interefered though we fully agree with the learned
standing counsel for the appellants on the legal grounds. Thus, it goes
without a saying that this Judgment shall not be treated as a precedent.
13. In the result, this Writ Appeal stands allowed. The appellants are
directed to offer an employment to the respondent on compassionate ground
in any entry level post, within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the Judgment. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
03.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Ye
ksa / sts
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
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 Director General,
Highways Department,
Guindy, Chennai – 25.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Department,
Madurai Circle, Madurai District.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.749 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
ksa/sts
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD) No. 749 of 2020
p
Dated:
03.06.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
