Madras High Court
J.Jesrien vs The Chairman on 29 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
J.Jesrien : Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
George Town,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 29.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.4347 of 2014, on the file
of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
For Appellant : Ms.A.Amala
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
By consent of both parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final
disposal.
2.Heard Ms.A.Amala, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for Government
appearing for the respondents.
3.This Writ Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the
order dated 29.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.4347 of 2014.
4.The writ petition was filed by the appellant to quash the memo
issued by the third respondent dated 31.01.2013 and the consequential
communication dated 28.06.2013, by which, the request made by the
appellant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to him on
account of the demise of his father, who died in harness was rejected on
the ground that his application is beyond the period of three [3] years
from the date of demise of his father.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
5.It is stated by the learned Government Counsel that on the
date when the appellant attained 18 years of age and made a request to
the authorities for appointment on compassionate ground, the period of
three years had expired and three years and 27 days had lapsed.
Therefore, as per the scheme, appointment cannot be offered on
compassionate ground.
6.Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the
appellant's mother has submitted an application on 03.06.2010 and the
third respondent had called for particulars by proceedings dated
21.06.2010 and this will go to show that the application was kept pending
and in the application dated 03.06.2010, the appellant's mother
specifically made a request for appointment to the appellant and not for
herself. Therefore, it is pointed out that the learned Single Bench was not
right in observing that the appellant's mother has not filed any
application.
7.Be that as it may, even going by the application submitted by
the appellant's mother dated 03.06.2010 and the proceedings of the third
respondent dated 21.06.2010, the appellant's case does not improve as
even as of 21.06.2010, the appellant was 16 years of age and not eligible
to be considered for compassionate appointment. Hence, the scheme has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
twin conditions to be complied with, namely, on the date of application,
the appellant should have completed 18 years of age and such application
should be filed within three years from the date of demise of the
employee. Therefore, the relief sought for by the appellant cannot be
granted. However, we note that there is a delay of only 27 days, which in
our considered view, cannot be stated to be unreasonable or wantonly the
appellant did not submit the application earlier. That apart, the
appellant's mother's application was dated 03.06.2010. Very rarely we
get such cases, where there is a marginal delay in filing applications for
grant of appointment. However, we are clear in our mind that we cannot
re-write the scheme framed by the respondents in the matter of
compassionate appointment, as it is not a source of recruitment rather, it
is a benefit granted to the family to tide over indigenous circumstances.
Therefore, all that we can observe is to give liberty to the appellant to
approach the appropriate respondents by way of representation, seeking
relaxation of the delay of 27 days and it is for the respondent to take a
decision in the matter in accordance with law.
8.Thus, while confirming the order passed in the writ petition,
rejecting the prayer sought for, we dispose of this writ appeal by giving
liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority of the
respondent department with a suitable representation, seeking relaxation
of the delay of 27 days in filing the application for appointment on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
compassionate ground and if such representation is submitted, the
competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
29.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
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
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
George Town,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.546 of 2021
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
