Anandraj vs The Municipal Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 18325 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18325 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 September, 2021

Madras High Court

Anandraj vs The Municipal Commissioner on 7 September, 2021

                                                                                W.P.(MD) No.5962 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.5962 of 2019

                 Anandraj,                                                    ... Petitioner
                                                             vs.


                 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
                 the impugned order         dated 05.10.2018 in Na.Ka.No:C1/3591/2018 of the
                 respondent and quash the same and consequently appoint the petitioner in any
                 suitable post under the compassionate appointment in the respondent office.


                                            For Petitioner         : Mr.J.Anandkumar
                                            For R-2          : Mr.P.Mahendran,
                                                               Standing Counsel for R-2
                                                        *****


                 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                W.P.(MD) No.5962 of 2019

                                                         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 the

impugned order dated 05.10.2018 in Na.Ka.No:C1/3591/2018 passed by the

respondent and quash the same and consequently appoint the petitioner in any

suitable post under the compassionate appointment in the respondent office.

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

Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

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 parents who were working as Sweeper

in the respondent Municipality, died in harness on 19.09.2012 and 16.11.2013 and

after their death, family of the deceased employees was facing hardships for

livelihood and in such circumstances, the petitioner applied for grant of

compassionate appointment on 11.09.2014 in person and thereafter, he was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.5962 of 2019

approaching the respondent, but no positive reply was forthcoming from him.

Again the petitioner sent a representation dated 06.04.2018 to the respondent.

However, by the impugned order dated 05.10.2018, 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 Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent

would submit that the petitioner has made a 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 respondent has rightly rejected

the application made by the petitioner. He disputed the representation and the

seal made therein, dated 11.09.2014 alleged to have been made by the petitioner

and on verification, he submitted that it is not a genuine one and stamp and seal

made therein, are not authenticated and cannot be relied on.

6. 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) [in the said Judgment, one of us(DKKJ) passed orders], by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.5962 of 2019

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.

7. 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 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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) No.5962 of 2019

8. 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

06.04.2018, 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

benefit contrary to the terms of the G.O.

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

there is no illegality in the impugned order of the respondent in

Na.Ka.No:C1/3591/2018 dated 05.10.2018. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is