R. Jaya Suruthi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 17815 Mad

                                                                          W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED : 01.09.2021

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                          W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020
                R. Jaya Suruthi                                              ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.

                1. The State of Tamil Nadu
                   Represented by the Secretary to Government,
                   Education Department,
                   Fort. St. George,
                   Chennai - 600 009.

                2. The Director of School Education,
                   College Road,
                   Chennai - 600 009.

                3. The Co-Director of School Education,
                   Staff Block,
                   Scholl Education Movement,
                   Chennai.

                4. The District Educational Officer,
                   Kanyakumari District.

                5. The Additional Assistant Elementary
                   Educational Officer,
                   Kanyakumari District.                                    ... Respondents

                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 of the 3rd respondent proceedings in M.M.No.12548/J/E4/2020 dated
                14.07.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                1/9
                                                                                 W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020


                respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the
                basis of his educational qualification within a time limit as stipulated by this
                Hon'ble Court


                                      For Petitioner     : M/S.M. Murugan

                                      For Respondents : Mr.A.K Manickam,
                                                        learned counsel for State

                                                       ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in

M.M.No.12548/J/E4/2020 dated 14.07.2020 and quash the same as illegal and

consequently direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to

the petitioner on the basis of his educational qualification within a time limit as

stipulated by this Hon'ble Court

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.According to the petitioner, her mother was working as a Teacher in

Marayapuram Government School, Kanyakumari District and died on

09.10.2011, while she was in service. The petitioner submitted a representation

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

in the month of April 2014, to the third respondent along with relevant

documents requesting to consider her for compassionate appointment.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father and brother have given

consent letters for providing compassionate appointment to her and they have

also made a similar request to the first respondent. But the third respondent

has returned the petitioner's representation vide proceedings dated 11.07.2014,

on the ground that at the time of application, the petitioner has not completed

18 years of age. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has

been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

4. An identical issue came up before the Honourable Division Bench of

this Court in W.A.No.1749 of 2019 (Sudhanthira Devi vs. The State of Tamil

Nadu and others). by Judgment dated 03.09.2019, following the decisions of

the Honourable Supreme Court, has held that applications for compassionate

appointment submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be entertained.

5. The Honourable Full Bench in Paragraph No.13 of the Judgment dated

11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.7016 of 2011 has held as follows:

“13. In the light of the above we find that the judgment in the case of A.Kamatchi v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2013) 2 CWC 758 is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

not only contrary to the law laid down in the case of E.Ramasamy v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, but it also has, as indicated by our brother, Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his judgment, misconstrued the same. In view of what has been indicated above we are also of the view that the period of three years is a rationale and reasonable period under the relevant Government Orders and the rules. We may, however, observe that it is open to the State Government to make any provision for relaxation of the period in exceptionally rare cases on the principles as indicated herein above.”

6. Furthermore, G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1)

Department, dated 23.01.2020, has clearly prescribed the time limit to prefer

application for compassionate appointment as three years from the date of

death of the Government servants.

7.Admittedly, when the petitioner's mother died on 09.10.2011, the

petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. After a period of

nearly 9 years, the petitioner claims appointment on compassionate grounds. It

is beyond the prescribed time limit of 3 years. In this regard, it is worthwhile to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

refer a decision of this Court in “A.Venkatesan versus The Chairman, TNEB,

Chennai and another” in W.P.No.33500 of 2014, dated 11.10.2018, wherein, it

has been observed as under:

“4. This Court is of an opinion that the compassionate appointment is a special scheme and the scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the penurious circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the Government employee. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment must be extended to the legal heirs of the deceased employee to protect their livelihood, immediately after the death of the deceased employee. Thus, the appointment to be granted on compassionate grounds within a reasonable period of three years or atleast within a period of five years. Beyond that, legal presumption would be that the penurious circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the Government employee became vanished. It is not as if the compassionate appointment can be claimed as a matter of right to provide one appointment to one family of the deceased Government employee. Such a scheme can never be accepted, in view of the fact that the scheme of appointment itself, is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The scheme being a special one was introduced in violation of the constitutional principles.

Therefore, the same must be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions. ....”

8. In fact, there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the

petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some

specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

the family gets immediate relief. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to a

decision reported in "State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin" {(2003) 7 SCC

511}, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 11 of its judgment,

held as under:-

“In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others (1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of appointments on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was re-iterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) vs. Union of India and others (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 689) and Union of India and others vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends, meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee.

As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and there nullity the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

9. Therefore, the scheme of providing compassionate appointment can be

extended only to eligible member of the family and not to an ineligible person.

Scheme has not been framed to provide employment assistance as and when the

son or daughter of the deceased employee attains majority. Under the scheme,

the department is not obligated to keep any post vacant, till the applicant attains

majority or to consider his candidature on attaining majority. Scheme only

enables those who are eligible and satisfy all the eligibility criteria including

age, within three years from the date of death.

10.In the light of the above decisions supra, no relief can be granted be

granted as there is no illegality in the impugned order of the third respondent

in M.M.No.12548/J/E4/2020 dated 14.07.2020. Accordingly, this Writ Petition

is dismissed. No costs.

                                                                            01.09.2021
                Index              : Yes / No
                Internet           : Yes/ No

                dn

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

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 State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Co-Director of School Education, Staff Block, School Education Movement Chennai.

4. The District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District.

5. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District.

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

dn

W.P(MD)No.10494 of 2020

01.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/