Madras High Court
M.Meeral vs The District Collector on 8 August, 2022
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022 and
CMP(MD) No.6508 of 2022
M.Meeral : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Collector
Cheranmahadevi
Tirunelveli District : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No.15528 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.(MD)No.
15528 of 2021.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal
are as follows:
The appellant is the wife of one Mohammed Abdul Rahman, who
died, when he was serving as a Village Administrative Officer at South
Ariyanayagipuram Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
Since he died, while he was in service, on behalf of her daughter, the
appellant gave a representation seeking appointment on compassionate
ground. After assessing the financial background of the family, the
Tahsildar issued a certificate to the appellant recommending the case of
the appellant's daughter to provide appointment on compassionate
ground. Similarly, the Sub Collector, namely, the second respondent also
forwarded his recommendation to the first respondent. The first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
respondent, however, passed the impugned order thereby rejecting the
application on the ground that subsequent to the death of her husband,
the appellant's son got employment and was working from the year 2016
and that the application to provide appointment on compassionate ground
to another legal heir is not permissible as per G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and
Employment dated 23.01.2020. Challenging the same, the appellant filed
a writ petition. Accepting the reason assigned by the first respondent, the
writ petition came to be dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal,
the appellant is before this Court with this writ appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant's son got employment in the year 2016 and is living separately,
after marriage and that he is not extending any financial support to the
family of the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that
G.O.Ms.No.18 cannot be applied mechanically to the case of the
appellant, as the intention behind providing compassionate appointment
will be defeated, if the application of eligible candidates, like the
appellant's daughter, who really deserve, are dismissed by applying
G.O.Ms.No.18 on literal interpretation. To support his contention, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 19.02.2021 in
the case of District Collector v. K.Ilayarani in W.A.(MD) No.381/2021.
4. This Court is unable to countenance the arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellant for the following reasons:
(i) First of all, as it has been repeatedly held by this Court as well
as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the application to provide
appointment on compassionate ground should be considered strictly in
accordance with the scheme of compassionate appointment.
(ii) In the present case, the facts are not in dispute that one of the
legal heir of the deceased employee, ie., appellant's son got employment,
after the death of the deceased employee/husband of the appellant ;
(iii) G.O.Ms.No.18 contains comprehensive guidelines for
providing appointment on compassionate ground and the said G.O.
consists of the following clause:
“(v) The compassionate ground appointment will
not be considered:-
(a) In case any person of the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
Government Servant's family is in regular employment
in Government/private enterprises.
(b) The wife of the deceased Government Servant
who applied for appointment for herself is remarried.”
(iv) Though the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment
(supra) relied upon by the appellant has considered a case, which is
almost similar to the present case, the Division Bench has not referred to
the comprehensive guidelines vide G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 23.01.2020.
Had the Division Bench considered the guidelines, the judgment would
be otherwise. Hence, this Court is unable to follow the same as
precedent ; and
(v) In the present case, referring to the comprehensive guidelines
particularly, clause (v) extracted above, the District Collector has rightly
rejected the application of the appellant. The learned single Judge has
also dismissed the writ petition by holding that the order of the District
Collector is perfectly in order and hence, there is no interference is
warranted on the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
[S.S.S.R, J.] & [S.S.Y, J.]
08.08.2022
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The District Collector
Tirunelveli District
Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub Collector
Cheranmahadevi
Tirunelveli District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.(MD)No.834 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR. J
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J
RR
Order made in
WA(MD) No.834 of 2022
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
