Madras High Court
Muniasamy vs The Director on 28 October, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
Muniasamy ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
DMS Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Deputy Director,
Health Services,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Block Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Eral – 628 801,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order, dated 16.08.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.21724 of
2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar
for Mr.U.Kasipandian
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.21724 of 2018,
dated 16.08.2021, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ
Appeal.
2.The appellant has filed the Writ Petition to issue a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order dated 16.05.2018 of the respondents and to quash
the same and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint him
in a suitable vacancy under compassionate category.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was working
as Village Health Nurse and she died in harness on 16.05.2001
leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. According to the
petitioner, he was two years at the time of death of his mother. The
petitioner submitted his application seeking for compassionate
appointment on attaining the age of 18 years on 06.06.2017. The
second respondent by order dated 16.05.2018 rejected the
petitioner's application stating that he has submitted his application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
beyond three years from the date of death of his mother on
16.05.2001. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed the Writ
Petition and the learned Single Judge by order dated 16.08.2021
dismissed the Writ Petition finding that the petitioner has submitted
his application after nearly 17 years from the date of death of his
mother. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge
took into consideration the ratio laid down in the following
Judgments:-
(i) In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported
in 1994 (4) SCC 138, the Honourable Supreme held as follows:-
“6. For these very reasons, the compassionate
employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a
reasonable period which must be specified in the rules.
The consideration for such employment is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in future. The
object being to enable the family to get over the
financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of
the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment
cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
(ii) In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh
reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613, the Honourable Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“8. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra
is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the
High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may
make for a quick or easy disposal 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 9-8- 2016, nearly
twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the
death of the employee.”
(iii) In the unreported Judgment of the Honourable Full Bench
of this Court dated 11.03.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.7016 of 2011,
the Division Bench of this Court has held that the applications for
compassionate appointment submitted beyond the period of three
years cannot be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
4.Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents submitted that even as per G.O(Ms)No.18,
Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the
application for compassionate ground appointment should be made
within three years from the date of the death of the Government
servant.
5.On a reading of the said G.O, it is also clear that the
Government has prescribed the minimum age of 18 years at the
time of submitting the application for compassionate ground
appointment. It is needless to say that 18 years age limit fixed in
the G.O is for getting an compassionate appointment.
6.When the appellant was only two years on the date of death
of his mother, the period of limitation of three years cannot be
extended for submitting the application for compassionate ground
appointment. In the G.O, it has also been stated that the appointing
authorities shall examine the financial condition of the deceased
Government servant and offer job to an eligible member of the
family only after satisfying themselves that, but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
7.In the case on hand, when the appellant was able to get
over the crisis and was able to survive for more than 17 years and
has also completed Bachelor Degree, the very purpose of providing
compassionate appointment would be defeated if the application
submitted by the appellant is considered in his favour after a lapse
of 17 years. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all
these aspects, rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find
any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the
same is dismissed. No costs.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
28.10.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
To
1.The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
DMS Campus,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Deputy Director,
Health Services,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Block Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Eral – 628 801,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021
28.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
