Madras High Court

S. Kumar vs The Chairman on 26 November, 2021

                                                                                       W.P.No.5855 of 2014

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Dated 26.11.2021

                                                             CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                                     W.P.No.5855 of 2014

                       S. Kumar                                                        ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

                       1. The Chairman,
                          Chennai Port Trust,
                          Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

                       2. The Secretary, Chennai Port Trust,
                          Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.                               .. Respondents

                       Prayer: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of
                       India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
                       records        of    the     second    respondent    in   his       proceedings
                       No.SCT5/1279/2014/GA dated 13.02.2014 and quash the same and
                       consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner forthwith
                       on compassionate ground in the post of clerk in Chennai Port Trust and
                       pass orders.


                                  For petitioner             : Mr.K.Raja
                                  For respondents            : Mr.Hajamohideen Gisthi
                                                               for R1 and R2.


                       Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                W.P.No.5855 of 2014

                                                           ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order

dated 13.02.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint

the petitioner forthwith on compassionate ground in the post of clerk in

Chennai Port Trust.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief:

The petitioner's father M.Subramanian was working as Riveter

Grade-I in Chennai Port Trust and he died on 17.02.2001, while he was

in service, leaving behind his wife, two sons and one daughter

(including the petitioner). Immediately, the petitioner made application

for compassionate appointment before the respondents on 29.03.2001

and he was given D.R.No.2538/2001 vide letter dated 01.11.2011. He

also worked as Apprentice from 1991 to 1994 as Fitter in Chennai Port

Trust and he studied upto B.A. The contention of the petitioner is that,

instead of giving compassionate appointment, the respondents gave

pressure to accept the meagre financial help in lieu of compassionate

appointment and finally given a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- on 13.10.2012 on

a humanitarian gesture. After came to know that the juniors, whose

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5855 of 2014

father died, after the death of petitioner's father were given

compassionate appointment, by overlooking the petitioner's seniority, he

repaid the above amount by Demand Draft bearing No.508522 dated

03.02.2014. But it was returned by the respondent vide impugned

order dated 13.02.2014. Hence, this writ petition.

2. The contentions of the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents are briefly as follows:

The issue of compassionate appointment will not be considered

based on the seniority and it will be considered based on the penurious

condition of the deceased employees and as per Rule. Upon

implementation of Government Order No.14014/19/2002-Estt(D) dated

05.05.2003, 868 dependants names were weeded out from the

dependant list, including the petitioner herein, who have completed

three years of waiting period. However, considering the pitiable

condition of such of those dependants, on approval of the Ministry, a

letter has been sent to all the 868 dependants, including the present

petitioner on 16.06.2012, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that a

lumpsum compensation would be made in lieu of compassionate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5855 of 2014

appointment in the Port Trust. The petitioner and his family members

have filed joint declaration and indemnity bond agreeing to receive the

lump sum of Rs.3,85,000/- on a humanitarian gesture. After having

accepted the compensation awarded and having received the above

sum, without any demur, the petitioner, on a change of mind, has sent a

Demand Draft for Rs.3,85,000/- to the respondents. But, it was

returned to him by RPAD on 13.02.2014, stating that the compensation

package was made in lieu of the claim for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner cannot now be retract and his claim cannot be considered

at this stage.

2.1. In order to comply the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in SLP (C)No.34085 of 2013 and the order of this cour int

W.P.No.7522 of 2011, one S.Jayachithra has been appointed as peon in

the Chennai Port Trust. But, there are no orders from the Hon'ble

Supreme Court to consider all the dependants for compassionate

appointment. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5855 of 2014

3.Heard the rival submissions made by the counsels to both the

parties. I have perused the materials on record.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted an application before

the respondents on 29.03.2001 seeking compassionate appointment.

Thereafter, he received a cheque for Rs.3,85,000/- dated 13.10.2012, as

one time measure in lieu of compassionate appointment and to that

effect, the petitioner and his family members have submitted their Joint

Affidavit of Declaration and Indemnity Bond. In the above declaration,

it was agreed by them as follows.

" We have agreed amongst ourselves to authorize one

among us viz., (3) S. Kumar, who is the applicant for

appointment on compassionate ground and whose name is now

being weeded out in the waiting list for compassionate

appointment in lieu of the said compensation package, to receive

the lump sum compensation package as a one time measure, on

behalf of all of us and as the representative of all the dependants

of late M.Subramani, Ex.Employee, Chennai Port Trust and that

all of us have absolutely no objection whatsoever in the Chennai

Port Trust issuing and making payment of the entire

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5855 of 2014

compensation amount as a one time measure to one among us on

behalf of all of us.

In acknowledgement of the fact that the said payment of

compensation is being done by the Chennai Port Trust only on a

humanitarian gesture, we state and submit that we have no further

claims whatsoever against the Chennai Port Trust, present or

future, in this regard".

5. Therefore, the petitioner had received the said amount on

13.10.2012 from the Port Trust and submitted Affidavit of Declaration

and Indemnity Bond declaring that they have no further claims

whatsoever against the respondents. Subsequently, after two years, he

made representation on 03.02.2014, seeking compassionate

appointment, by returning the amount of Rs.3,85,000/- through

Demand Draft. But the second respondent had returned the above said

Demand Draft to the petitioner stating compensation package was

made only in lieu of the claim for compassionate appointment.

6. According to the petitioner, similarly placed person namely one

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5855 of 2014

Jayachitra got appointment, pursuant to the order passed by this court

and hence, he may be granted a relief for compassionate appointment.

But, on perusal of the orders passed in favour of the above said

Jeyachitra shows that, she has not received any compensation of lump

sum in lieu of the compassionate appointment. The facts of above said

case is different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the above

order will not apply to the present case.

7. More over, the petitioner's father died on 17.02.2001. After

lapse of nearly 13 years, i.e. on 03.02.2014, the petitioner gave

representation to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment,

beyond the prescribed period of three years.

8. In an identical issue, the Honourable Supreme Court in the

judgment in Government of India and another Vs. P.Venkatesh

reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613, has held as follows:

8. This 'dispose of the representation' mantra is increasingly

permeating the judicial process in the High Court and the

Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5855 of 2014

of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do

no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again

before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant

costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have

been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance,

thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time, the High

Court issued its direction on 09.08.2016, nearly twenty one

years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee.