Madras High Court
V.Subbaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 29 October, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
V.Subbaiah ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director,
Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Deputy Director,
Medicine Rural and Family Welfare Department,
Thoothukudi. ... 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.24630 of
2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan
for Mr.D.Anbarasu
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.24630 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 passed by the second respondent, dated
22.01.2018 and the consequential order of the third respondent,
dated 03.02.2018 and to quash the same and consequently,
directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under
compassionate ground in anyone of the suitable post according to
his educational qualification under the third respondent by accepting
the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2017.
3.It is the case of the appellant that his father was working as
driver in the third respondent Department and he died in harness on
20.12.2002 leaving behind the petitioner and his mother as his legal
heirs. Thereafter, the appellant's mother submitted a representation
to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
Since the appellant was a minor at that time, the application was
rejected by the respondents. Subsequently, on 27.04.2017, the
appellant submitted another application seeking for appointment on
compassionate ground. However, the respondents rejected the
application stating that the application has been made after a lapse
of three years.
4.When the appellant's father had died on 20.12.2002, the
application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground
should have been submitted within three years from the date of
death of the employee.
5.The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the case
of both parties, dismissed the Writ Petition finding that the
application has been made after a lapse of three years.
6.In the Government Order in G.O(Ms)No.18, Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the time limit to
prefer the application for compassionate appointment should be
made within three years from the date of the death of the
employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
7.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.”
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
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.
8.In view of the settled legal position, the learned Single
Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any ground
to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
29.10.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1986 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 Secretary to Government,
Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director,
Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Deputy Director,
Medicine Rural and Family Welfare Department,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.1986 of 2021
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
