Madras High Court
Mr.S.Sridar vs The Commissioner on 2 August, 2022
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
Mr.S.Sridar .. Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai.
2.The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury Office,
Ramanathapuram District. ..Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
dated 13.02.2018 passed in W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2011 by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR.J.,)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single
Judge dated 13.02.2018 in W.P(MD)No.3706 of 2011, dismissing the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner.
2.Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
3.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are
as follows. The appellant's biological father viz., A.R.Santhanam died on
11.09.1980, while in service and hence, the appellant's mother by name
K.L.Praba, was appointed as Junior Assistant in the second respondent office
on compassionate ground. It is admitted that the appellant's mother got
remarried one Alagarsamy. However, when the appellant's mother was in
service, she died on 21.08.2005 leaving behind her second husband viz.,
Alagarsamy, the appellant and two other daughters. The appellant submitted an
application on 21.09.2005 seeking compassionate appointment and few
representations were also submitted on 24.05.2009 and 27.05.2009. Thereafter,
the appellants submitted an application under the Right To Information Act, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
he wanted to know about the stage of his application. By communication, dated
14.06.2010, the second respondent informed the appellant that he is not eligible
to seek compassionate appointment, as per the classification issued vide letter
of Govt., dated 26.03.2010. This communication dated 14.06.2010 is
challenged in the writ petition. After referring to several precedents on the
object of providing compassionate appointment, the writ petition was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge.
4.The question is whether the appellant, who is the son of
Mr.A.R.Santhanam, is eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground
after the death of his mother, who was earlier appointed on compassionate
ground following the death of her husband on 11.09.1980.
5.The scope and object of providing compassionate appointment is to
mitigate the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased Government
Employee. The appellant was a minor at the time of his father's death. His
mother got employment on compassionate ground immediately following the
death of the appellant's father viz., Santhanam. Even though the appellant's
mother is not eligible to get appointment because of her remarriage, it is stated
that she was allowed to continue in service till her death, as the department did
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
not know about the status of the appellant's mother's remarriage.
6.The issue whether the appellant is entitled to get appointment on
compassionate ground should be decided only on the basis of the scheme.
7.The entitlement of the appellant to get compassionate appointment
after the death of his mother, who was also appointed on compassionate ground
is not covered by any scheme. Admittedly the appellant's mother had availed
the opportunity of getting compassionate appointment following the death of
her husband/the appellant's father. Appellant being another heir of the deceased
father cannot get employment on compassionate ground after the death of his
mother, once again, as this would amount to provide multiple employments, on
compassionate ground, in the same family to one after another. The petitioner's
claim is liable to be rejected on the ground alone. The mother of the appellant
has served considerable period when she died on 21.08.2005. The appellant
was 29 years when his mother died. The petitioner is unable to secure
employment is a disturbing fact. In our country while growing unemployment is
a problem, it is an astonishing misery that the percentage of job
seekers(percentage of persons who are looking for job among the unemployed)
is declining. If the appellant is unable to secure a job with his qualification and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
experience he gained till he filed the writ petition in 2011, the real concern is
about the efficiency in the administration by providing compassionate
appointment to the appellant at this age.
8.In such circumstances, this Court is unable to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition after
considering the case on merits by a lengthy process of reasoning in the light of
several precedents. Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.S.S.R.J.,) (S.S.Y.J.,)
02.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Ns
To
1.The Commissioner,
The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts
Chennai.
2.The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury Office,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
S.SRIMATHY,J.,
Ns
W.A(MD)No.847 of 2018
02.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
