Madras High Court
Murugan vs The Director Of Municipal ... on 7 September, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.5981 of 2019
Murugan, ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Office,
Pudukkottai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to
impugned order dated 28.11.2018 in A.Thi.Mu.No:10972/2018/D1 of the 2nd
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to
consider the petitioner's application and provide him appointment on the ground
of compassionate appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
For R-1 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Standing Counsel for the State
For R-2 : Mr.P.Mahendran,
Standing Counsel for R-2
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to impugned
order dated 29.11.2018 in A.Thi.Mu.No:10972/2018/D1 of the 2nd respondent
and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the
petitioner's application and provide him appointment on compassionate ground.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. According to the petitioner, his father, who was working as Sweeper
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
in the respondent Municipality, died in harness on 04.01.2008 and after his death,
the family was put to suffer to eke out livelihood. Hence, the petitioner applied to
the 3rd respondent in the year 2009 for grant of compassionate appointment to him
and he produced all the documents including no objection from other legal heirs
of the deceased employee and thereafter, he was approaching the respondent, but
no positive reply was forthcoming from him. Again the petitioner sent a
representation dated 27.11.2018 to the respondents. However, by the impugned
order dated 29.11.2018, the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ
Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
made application in the year 2010 and he also submitted that the petitioner made
an application 23.12.2009 addressed to the Chief Minister's Cell which is well
within the prescribed time and the same was forwarded to the Director, Municipal
Administration vide proceedings dated 27.01.2010, who in turn advised to
approach the concerned authority and thereafter, the petitioner made application
to the respondents, but it was rejected, which cannot be sustained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
6. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the petitioner has made representation belatedly after the prescribed
period of three years and by relying on G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment
Department, dated 26.06.1995, the 3rd respondent has rightly rejected the
application made by the petitioner. He disputed the application sent to the Chief
Minister cell as there is no proper seal and acknowledge and hence, the same
cannot be relied on.
7. 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.
8. 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2013) 2 CWC 758 is 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.”
9. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made the application within the time
limit as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department,
dated 26.06.1995 as per which, the application for appointment on
compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the death of
Government Servant. But the petitioner made the representation only on
27.11.2018, i.e. beyond the prescribed time limit. In the absence of the material
to show that the petitioner made application in time, this Court cannot extend the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
benefit contrary to the terms of the G.O.
10. In the light of the above decisions supra, no relief can be granted as
there is no illegality in the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated
28.11.2018 in A.Thi.Mu.No:10972/2018/D1. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is
dismissed. No costs.
07.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
dn
To
1.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Office,
Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
dn
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.5981 of 2019
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
