Madras High Court
T.Vasuki vs The District Collector on 10 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
T.Vasuki : Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector,
Collectorate, Theni. : Respondent / Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying this
Court to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.6590 of 2013, dated
03.01.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated
03.01.2018 passed in W.P.(MD).No.6590 of 2013, filed by the appellant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
quash the proceedings of the respondent, dated 03.04.2013, rejecting the
application filed by the appellant for grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds for her daughter viz., Selvi.Padmapriya.
2. We have heard Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government counsel appearing for
the respondent.
3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant's husband
Mr.R.Thangam was working as an Assistant in the Office of the District
Collector, Theni District and died in harness on 17.06.2006. At the time of
demise of Mr.R.Thangam, the appellant / his wife was aged about 48 years and
submitted an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds,
dated 10.04.2006 for herself. The respondent / Department did not consider the
said application and kept the matter pending for more than six years. In the
interregnum, the petitioner has submitted various representations, dated
24.09.2012 and 05.10.2012. In those representations, the appellant has pointed
out her health condition and now, she is unable to manage the family and also
not able to work, if employment is granted to her. Even much prior to that i.e.,
on 01.06.2010, she had submitted an application for grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds to her daughter Selvi.Padmapriya. This application was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
kept pending for merely three years and by an order dated 03.04.2013, the same
was rejected. The only reason given in the order of rejection is that the
appellant alone can seek for appointment on compassionate grounds and she
cannot seek for appointment for her daughter. This conclusion is erroneous and
contrary to the scheme framed by the State Government for grant of
appointment on compassionate grounds.
4. As pointed out by the learned Government counsel appearing for
the respondent, it may be true that there might have been representation given
by the appellant to grant appointment to her elder daughter, but even assuming
such request was made, no orders were passed by the respondent on those
applications and in the order dated 03.04.2013 impugned in the writ petition.
5. The only reason is that the appellant cannot seek for
compassionate appointment for her daughter. Very recently, the Government of
Tamil Nadu has issued comprehensive guidelines for appointment on
compassionate grounds in G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1)
Department, dated 23.01.2020. In terms of the said Government Order in the
order of preference, the children of the deceased are placed higher than the
widow of the deceased. The following has been mentioned which will be the
order of preference / eligibility:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
“Legal Heirs / Near relatives of the deceased Government
servant/Person, who are eligible for compassionate grounds
appointment
(i) Son / Unmarried Daughter / Wife / Husband /
Legally Adopted Son / Legally Unmarried Adopted Daughter /
Widowed Daughter / Divorced Daughter / Deserted Daughter of
the Deceased Government Servant.”
6. In any event, what is required to be seen as per the scheme for
compassionate appointment is that whether the family has been driven to
indigent circumstances on account of the untimely demise of the employee. If
the said test is satisfied then what is required to be seen is whether the
application is given within the time prescribed and whether all credentials are
furnished. If that is so, the application can be considered. If there are more
than one legal heirs and appointment is sought for one of the legal heirs, the
other legal heirs can be asked to give their no objection. This is the procedure
which has been followed in the State for several decades and this has also been
very emphatically reiterated in the recent Government Order. Thus, we find that
the reasons assigned in the order, dated 03.04.2013 is erroneous. Hence, we are
constrained to interfere with the order, dated 03.04.2013 passed by the
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
7. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The order passed in
the Writ Petition is set aside. Consequently, the order impugned in the writ
petition, dated 03.04.2013, is quashed and the respondent is directed to provide
appointment to the daughter of the appellant, namely, Selvi.Padmapriya on
compassionate grounds, within a period of three (03) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
10.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
tsg/ps
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
The District Collector,
Collectorate, Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
tsg/ps
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.448 of 2018
Dated
10.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
