Madras High Court
S.Venkateswaran vs The Additional Director on 9 March, 2021
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
S.Venkateswaran ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Director,
Land Survey and Records Department,
Survey House, Chepakkam,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Director,
District Survey Office,
Tirunelveli – 627 009. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 14.09.2011 in W.P(MD)No.9086 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Sundareshan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order 14.09.2011 in
W.P(MD)No.9086 of 2011.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/7
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant’s mother was working as a Draughtsman in the office
of the Assistant Director, District Survey Office, Tirunelveli. She was
suffering from hysteria and was under treatment in a private hospital.
Suddenly, she was found missing and hence, a police complaint was
lodged. Later, it was found that she died in a road accident on
03.10.2003. On the date of the death of the appellant's mother, he was
10 years old having born on 03.10.1993. The father of the appellant
made an application before the first respondent on 27.02.2006 and
thereafter, before the second respondent on 20.04.2006, seeking for
employment on compassionate grounds. The second respondent vide
letter dated 30.03.2006, had informed the appellant’s father that he had
to apply to the appointing authority for compassionate appointment.
Therefore, once again the appellant’s father applied to the second
respondent, but the same was rejected by the second respondent stating
that the application was made after three years. Thereafter, the
appellant had made an application on 06.06.2011 after attaining
majority. Since there was no response, the appellant had once again
made an application before the first respondent. In the interregnum, the
impugned order was passed by the second respondent.
The impugned order states that the application for compassionate
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/7
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
appointment ought to have been made within three years from the date
of death of the employee. Challenging the said order of rejection,
WP(MD)No.9086 of 2011 was filed.
3. The learned single Judge after elaborate consideration of facts
and legal position, had dismissed the writ petition.
4. Heard Mr.N.Sundareshan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. The only question that arises for determination is,
“Whether the appellant is entitled for compassionate appointment?”
6. The mother of the appellant died on 03.10.2003 and there were
several Government Orders governing the scheme of compassionate
appointment. All the Government Orders prevalent on the relevant date
prescribed only three years time limit from the date of the death of the
person, to make an application for compassionate appointment.
Any compassionate appointment is only a succour to the family at the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/7
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
time of hardship and distress. Such compassionate appointment are
permissible only in the last category of Class-III and Class-IV post. The
appellant was a minor thus, ineligible for appointment on the date of
death of his Mother.
7. It would be appropriate to advert to the decision of the
Honourable Full Bench dated 11.03.2020 in WP(MD)No.7016 of 2011
etc., batch, wherein it is specifically made clear that compassionate
appointment cannot be made in the absence of Rules and Regulations
issued by the Government Authorities and any request has to be
considered strictly in accordance with Government Orders.
8. Admittedly, a compassionate appointment is a deviation from the
regular procedure of recruitment intended to meet the sudden crisis
occurring in the family. The Full Bench also had observed that various
Government Orders provided different schemes at different points of
time. The scheme available on the date of death of the Government
employee is only applicable and not the scheme which has been framed
after the cause of action had arisen.
9. The Honourable Supreme Court in a recent judgement in
N.C.Santhosh V. State of Karnataka, 2020 (7) SCC 617, held as
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/7
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
follows:
"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment
culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the
point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of
consideration of the application, should be the basis for
consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A
dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any
vested right accruing on the death of the government
employee, can only demand consideration of his/her
application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration
in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of
death of the government employee."
At this juncture, it would be appropriate to advert to G.O.(Ms).No.18,
Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, in which,
comprehensive guidelines are issued for appointment on compassionate
grounds. The said G.O(Ms)No.18, prescribes only three years time limit
from the date of death of the Government servant for making an
application for appointment on compassionate ground.
10. In the light of the above, the application made by the appellant
long after the death of the Government employee, cannot be considered
and the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed this writ petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/7
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
11. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the same in the
light of the above discussion and the latest Government Order issued
in G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated
23.01.2020, in this regard. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.
No Costs.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
09.03.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
To:
1.The Additional Director,
Land Survey and Records Department,
Survey House, Chepakkam,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Director,
District Survey Office,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/7
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
W.A(MD)No.688 of 2012
09.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/7
