Madras High Court
D.Karthika vs The Director Of Public Health And ... on 11 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) No.3279 of 2022
D.Karthika .. Appellant
Vs
1. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
O/o. the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine,
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Director of Health Service,
O/o. Deputy Director of Health Service Office,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre,
Namagiripettai,
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No.14672
of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sidharthan,
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
07.03.2022 recorded on W.P.(MD) No.14672 of 2021. This appeal
is by an unsuccessful writ petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has
submitted that, the denial to give compassionate appointment to
the writ petitioner was an illegal action of the State which learned
Single Judge ought to have interfered with. It is submitted that
only because the father of the petitioner was also in Government
service or subsequently was a pensioner, is no ground to deny
compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the death of
mother of the petitioner who was in Government service. It is
submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. On the other hand, learned Special Government
Pleader has submitted that, the facts noted above speaks for
itself and this was not the case where compassionate
appointment could have been offered to the petitioner and
therefore dismissal of writ petition can not be said to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
erroneous in any manner which may call for any interference by
this Court. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties and having considered the material on record
this Court finds that, it is not in dispute that the father and
mother both - of the petitioner were in service. The mother of the
petitioner died and at that time, the father of the petitioner was
also in service. We find that, the concept of compassionate
appointment in this factual background would not crop up at all.
The demand of the petitioner to get compassionate appointment,
according to us in this factual background, was not justified. Only
because the application for appointment was made after the
retirement of the petitioner would not confer any additional right
in favour of the petitioner. Waiting for convenience to become
entitled to get compassionate appointment itself would frustrate
the very purpose for which the compassionate appointment is
considered. We find that, no interference is required and this
appeal needs to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
5. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Connected C.M.P.(MD) No. 3279 of 2022 would not
survive.
[P.U., J] [R.V., J]
11.04.2022
Index : No
ssm/3
To
1. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
O/o. the Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine,
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Director of Health Service,
O/o. Deputy Director of Health Service Office,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre,
Namagiripettai,
Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
(ssm)
W.A(MD)No.330 of 2022
11.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
