R.Karthikeyan vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 18192 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 18192 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2022

Madras High Court

R.Karthikeyan vs The Managing Director on 15 December, 2022

                                                                               W.P.(MD)No.28198 of 2022

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED : 15.12.2022

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                    W.P.(MD)No.28198 of 2022

                     R.Karthikeyan                                                 ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.

                     1. The Managing Director,
                        Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                        (Kumbakonam) Limited,
                        New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam.

                     2. The General Manager,
                        Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                        (Kumbakonam) Limited, Karaikudi Region,
                        Karaikudi.                                                 ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
                     consider petitioner representation dated 21.11.2022 in accordance with law
                     within the time stipulated by this Court.


                                   For Petitioner        :       Mr.D.Venkatachalam

                                   For Respondents       :       Mr.K.Jagadees Balan
                                                                 Standing Counsel

                     _________
                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.P.(MD)No.28198 of 2022

                                                       ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents

to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2022 in accordance

with law.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father

Rajendran was working as a Conductor in the respondent Transport

Corporation. While so, he died in harness on 20.05.2017 leaving behind his

wife, the petitioner and his younger brother as his legal heirs. At the time of

his death, the petitioner was 17 years. After completed 18 years, the

petitioner could not register his name for getting compassionate

appointment. Thereafter, on 21.11.2022, the petitioner submitted a

representation to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment.

However, the same has not been considered. Hence, the present Writ

Petition.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28198 of 2022

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that it would suffice, if the respondents are directed to dispose of the

representation of the petitioner, dated 21.11.2022, on merits and in

accordance with law, within a specified period.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

would submit that as per the scheme of Transport Corporation, if the

petitioner made a representation within a period of three years from the date

of death of the employee, the same will be considered.

5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused

the materials available on record.

6. The issue with regard to compassionate appointment has been

decided by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.7016 of 2011 etc.,

batch dated 11.03.2020. In a reference made to the Full Bench, the Full

Bench has held as follows:

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28198 of 2022

“In view of the above, the reference is answered as under:-

a) Appointment on compassionate basis has to be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant G.O.'s or the scheme that has been framed by the employer. Any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.

b) In view of the above the judgment of the Division Bench in E.Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Secretary to Government Vs. Renugadevi, lays down the correct law and the judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.08.2013 in A.Kamatchi Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is contrary to the scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board does not lay down the correct proposition. Reference is answered accordingly.”

7. As per the said decision, it is clear that the appointment on

compassionate basis should be strictly be in accordance with the

Government Orders / the Scheme framed for the said purpose by the

employer. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that after the death of the

petitioner's father, the petitioner, who is one of the legal heir, submitted a

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.28198 of 2022

representation for compassionate appointment, which was not considered on

the ground that the application has been submitted after a lapse of five years

and as per the G.O. Ms. No.120 (Labour & Employment) dated 20.6.1995,

the application ought to have been made within the prescribed period of

three years and in the prescribed format.