Madras High Court
E.Celin Bercy vs The Deputy Secretary To ... on 8 September, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.11859 of 2021
E.Celin Bercy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Transport (C1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Nagercoil Division,
Ranithottam,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
impugned order issued by the third respondent vide 10.03.2021 and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the
petitioner's mother's representation dated 11.07.2017 regarding compassionate
appointment to the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
High Court, Madurai Bench in W.A.(MD)No.737 of 2013 and also in W.P.No.
25784 of 2010 and give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds
in any suitable post compensate with the petitioner's qualification consequent on
the death of her father V.Elango, Assistant Tradesman (2445) on 20.01.2000 while
in service in the respondent corporation.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivalagan
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Standing Counsel for state for R1
Mr.R.Rajamohan,
Standing Counsel for R2 & R3.
ORDER
The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 10.03.2021, passed by the third
respondent and to direct the second respondent to consider the case of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
2. The case of the petitioner is that her father was initially appointed
as Help (Tinker) in the respondent Corporation and subsequently, promoted as
Assistant Trades Man and worked in the third respondent corporation and he died
on 20.01.2000, while he was in service. On 10.01.2002, the petitioner's mother
made an application to the third respondent, at that time, the petitioner was minor.
Thereafter, on 11.07.2017, the petitioner's mother submitted an application to the
third respondent seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Since no
response is forthcoming, the petitioner has made an application dated 20.06.2019,
seeking compassionate appointment. However, the request of the petitioner was
rejected on the ground that the application was not made within the prescribed
period of three years. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been
filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at
the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was minor and therefore,
he could not submit application, however, his mother submitted an application on
10.01.2002, within the three years period. He further submitted that after
attaining the majority, the petitioner submitted application on 20.06.2019 along
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
with requisite certificates. The learned counsel further submitted that since the
petitioner has lost her father and she is suffering a lot without any job and
income, her case may be considered for compassionate appointment.
4. The learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that as per the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the time limit to prefer
application for compassionate appointment is three years from the date of death
of the employee. But, the petitioner herein submitted application after a lapse of
nearly nine years and hence, the third respondent has rightly rejected the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
Honourable Supreme Court, has held that applications for compassionate
appointment submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be entertained.
7. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh [(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.
9. ...
10. Bearing in mind the above principles, this
Court held: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana,
(1994) 4 SCC 138) SCC pp.141-42, para 6)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
“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.”
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, 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,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
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. 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.
10. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner's father died on
20.01.2000 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate
appointment on 20.06.2019, nearly after nine years. Therefore, in view of the
above settled legal position, the claim of the petitioner made beyond the
prescribed period of three years cannot be entertained and it deserves to be
rejected. Accordingly, the impugned order does not warrant any interference of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
this Court.
11. In fine, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.
08.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsm
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.
vsm
To
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
1.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Transport (C1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Nagercoil Division,
Ranithottam,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vsm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
W.P.(MD) No.11859 of 2021
08.09.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
