Madras High Court
M.Divahar vs The District Collector on 4 October, 2021
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
M.Divahar : Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2. The Principal District Administrative Officer,
Principal District Court,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3. The Principal District Judge,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District. : Respondents
(R.3- suo-motu impleaded as
per the order of this Court,
dated 04.10.2021)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records rejection orders dated
12.08.2021 and 01.09.2021, passed by the second respondent
herein to issue petitioner a suitable government job based on his
qualification under compassionate ground by considering the order
passed in W.P.(MD)No.6606 of 2020, dated 09.07.2020 by this
Court.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Bala Rathinakumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak kumar
Government Pleader
for R.1
: Mr.N.Tamil Mani
for R.2
ORDER
*************
[Order of the Court was made by K.MURALI SHANKAR.,J.]
The petitioner has filed the above Petition seeking issuance of
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the orders, dated 12.08.2021 and 01.09.2021, passed
by the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently,
to direct the respondents to give a suitable Government job to the
petitioner based on his qualification under compassionate ground,
by considering the orders passed in W.P(MD)No.6606 of 2020,
dated 09.07.2020 by this Court.
2.The facts not in dispute are that the petitioner is the son of
one Murugesan and Rasia Mani, that the petitioner's father
Murugesan was working as a Junior Bailiff in the Court of Principal
District Munsif Court, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District, that his
mother Rasia Mani was working as a Senior Bailiff in the Principal
District Court of Sivagangai, that the said Murugesan had died on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
20.10.2018, while in service and that his mother Rasia Mani got
retired from service on 30.06.2019 on attaining superannuation.
3.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted a
requisition, dated 05.11.2019, claiming compassionate appointment
as his father died in harness on 20.10.2018. The learned Principal
District Judge, Sivagangai, has returned the petitioner's application
vide communication dated 22.11.2019, raising certain queries.
4.The petitioner, without resubmitting the application after
rectifying the defects pointed out therein, has approached this
Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.10203 of 2021,
claiming the very same relief now claimed in the present Writ
Petition and the Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated
17.06.2021, disposed of the same by issuing the following
directions:
“7.Therefore, we dispose of the Writ Petition
with a direction to the petitioner to send an
appropriate reply to the queries raised and resubmit
the application, enclosing the relevant Government
orders and documents to prove as to how he is
eligible to secure appointment on compassionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
grounds. If such reply is submitted and the
application is resubmitted with the appropriate reply
to the queries raised, the second respondent shall
consider the same and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law within twelve weeks from the
date of re-presentation of the application.”
5.In pursuance of the orders of this Court passed in
W.P(MD)No.10203 of 2021, the petitioner has resubmitted his
application, dated 07.08.2021 and the learned Principal District
Judge has returned the petition by raising the main query that
when the petitioner's father A.Murugesan died on 20.10.2018, his
mother Tmt.P.Rasiyamani was working as senior bailiff and got
retirement on 30.06.2019 and as such, the applicant has to produce
the Government Order, if any, to show that even if there is already
any earning member in the family of the Government servant, who
died in harness, the other family member of the deceased
Government servant is also eligible for the compassionate
appointment.
6. The learned Principal District Judge has also raised two
other formal quires that since the petitioner's father A.Murugesan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
was working lastly as Junior Bailiff in the Principal District Munsif
Court, Manamadurai, the application for compassionate
appointment and other documents are to be submitted only through
proper channel i.e., through Principal District Munsif,
Manamadurai and that the Applicant has submitted his application
addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer instead of Principal
District Judge.
7.Thereafter, the petitioner has again resubmitted the
application, dated 25.08.2021 and the learned Principal District
Judge, has again returned the petition vide order, dated 01.09.2021,
raising the first query made in the return, dated 12.08.2021. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the
learned Principal District Judge, has passed an order, as if the
requisition of the petitioner was returned, has practically rejected
the claim of the petitioner and that is why the petitioner was
constrained to approach this Court again for the very same relief
claimed in the earlier petition. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, the only query raised in the
return order, dated 01.09.2021, has already been raised in the
earlier return, dated 12.08.2021 and that since the petitioner has
not given any reason or explanation for the said query, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
Principal District Judge, has practically rejected the claim of the
petitioner, even though it has been shown that the application was
returned.
8.The petitioner in the previous writ petition as well in the
present petition, has impleaded the Principal District
Administrative Officer of Sivagangai District, as the second
respondent, apart from the first respondent, District Collector. But,
it is pertinent to mention that the impugned orders of return were
made only by the Principal District Judge and hence this Court has
suo-motu ordered for the impleadment of the Principal District
Judge of Sivagangai District, as the third respondent.
9.Coming to the merits of the case, the main ground for
rejecting the claim of the petitioner, shown by the respondent is
that the petitioner's mother was working as a Senior Bailiff, at the
time of the death of his father and that since his mother was
already working, the petitioner is not entitled to claim
compassionate appointment. The learned Principal District Judge
has referred to G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment
Department, dated 02.05.1981, whereunder, the Government issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
the orders on the clarifications raised and the relevant G.O is
extracted hereunder for better appreciation;
“The dependant of a Government servant
who died in harness leaving his family in
indigent circumstances, is eligible to avail
himself of the concession granted in the
Government Orders read above even when there
is already an earning member in the family, if, in
the opinion of the appointing authority, the
family is in indigent circumstances. Before
deciding the indigent circumstances of the
family, the appointing authority should take into
account the number of dependants left, the
movable and immovable asset and liabilities left
by the deceased Government servant, the
income of the earning member in the family, as
also his liabilities. However, the concession
under the Government orders read above should
not be granted to more than one dependent in
the family of the deceased Government
servant”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
2. The Government have since reviewed
the orders referred to in paragraph I above.
They consider that according to existing orders,
there is scope for abuse of the above concession
on the plea that the family of the Government
servant who died in harness is in indigent
circumstances eventhough there is already any
earning member in that family. The Government
have, therefore, decided that if in the family of
the Government servant who died in harness,
there is already an earning member,
irrespective of the fact that the member is
employed in Government service or elsewhere,
other dependent members of the deceased
Government will not be eligible for the grant of
concession granted in the Government orders
read above.
3. The Government accordingly, in
partial modification of the orders issued in
Government Memo, read above direct that if
there is already any earning member in the
family of the Government servant who died in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
harness, the other dependants of the deceased
Government servant will not be eligible for the
concession of appointment in Government
departments and Government undertakings
without reference to Employment Exchange.
10.It is pertinent to mention that in view of the orders passed
in some writ petitions by this Court in this regard, the Government
of Tamil Nadu had examined the whole issue of compassionate
appointment and issued the comprehensive guidelines in
G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 23.01.2020 in supersession of all the earlier
orders and whereunder, listed out the legal heirs/near relatives of
the deceased Government servant, who are all eligible for
compassionate ground appointment
”(i) ...
(ii) ...
(iii) ...
(iv). If any person, in the deceased
Government servant's family was employed
even before the death of the Government
servant, but was living separately without
extending any help to the family, then the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
of the other eligible dependant will be
considered.”
11.In the same GO, under the heading “General”, it is
necessary to refer the third Clause,
“(iii) The concession under the scheme will not
be granted to more than one dependant in the
family of the deceased Government servant”.
12.In the case on hand, as already pointed out, when the
petitioner's father had died on 20.10.2018, the petitioner's mother
was very much working in the Principal District Court, Sivagangai.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent,
the petitioner himself has specifically admitted in the affidavit filed
in support of the writ petition that the petitioner has been living
with his wife along with his father and mother and his younger
sister as joint family, that his younger sister subsequently got
married and was living separately, that after the petitioner's
father's death, there were some family problems regarding to meet
out the financial crisis and that the petitioner has been living
separately along with his family without any monetary support from
the petitioner's mother. The petitioner has further stated that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
was a family quarrel between his sister and her husband and due to
that, she was also living with the petitioner and that the petitioner
has been looking after her family.
13.It is pertinent to mention that even according to the
petitioner, on the date of death of his father, the petitioner and his
wife were living with his mother. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has relied on a Judgment of this Court passed in
W.P(MD)No.6606 of 2020, dated 09.07.2020 and wherein, the
Government servant had left behind the widow and her three
children and one of the children subsequently got a Government job
on merits and not on the basis of compassionate ground. When it
was shown that the said son was living separately leading his own
life and never turned back and never come and help the family of
the deceased Government servant, the learned Single Judge of this
Court, applying Clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No.18, has allowed the Writ
Petition and directed the respondents therein, to grant appointment
on compassionate ground. The facts of the above case and the case
on hand are different and moreover, the decision rendered by the
learned Single Judge of this Court, cannot be considered as a
binding precedent on this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
14 .As already pointed out, the petitioner has pleaded vaguely
that he was living separately and that too, after the death of his
father. It is pertinent to note that compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is only a scheme
devised by the Government to help the needy legal heirs whose
lives are in distress, after the Government servant dies in harness.
15.Considering the above, it is very much clear that as per
the scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not
entitled to get the compassionate appointment and as such, the
return/rejection of the petitioner's claim by the learned Principal
District Judge, Sivagangai, cannot be found fault with. Hence, this
Court concludes that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
16.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
[M.D.,J.] [K.M.S.,J.]
04.10.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
lr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
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 District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2. The Principal District Administrative Officer,
Principal District Court,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3. The Principal District Judge,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
AND
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
lr
0RDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)NO.18016 of 2021
04.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
