Madras High Court
J. Saravanan vs The Managing Director on 2 March, 2022
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
J. Saravanan ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
& Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
& Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindadripet, Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 22.11.2021 in W.P. No.
18429 of 2014.
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
For Appellant :: Mr.P. Ayyamperumal
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Silambanan,
Additional Advocate General II
assisted by
Mr.S. Anbalagan
JUDGMENT
S. Vaidyanathan,J. & Mohammed Shaffiq,J.
The present appeal has been preferred questioning the order of the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18429 of 2014 dated 22.11.2021.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated
21.03.2014 rejecting the request of the appellant for appointment on
compassionate grounds. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the
submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the
materials on record and referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court with regard to the issue in question dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that the appellant/writ petitioner did not agitate the issue for a long
period and that the family was able to survive for about 24 years after the
death of the deceased employee and the claim for employment after a delay
of two decades cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by the same, the present
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
writ appeal has been preferred.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Additional Advocate General II appearing for the respondents.
4. After notice, the documents have been produced before this
Court. Eventhough in the communication dated 18.02.2008, it has been
stated that the case of the petitioner will be considered at the appropriate
stage and earlier, the name of the appellant/writ petitioner has been
substituted in his mother's place in the seniority list for providing
employment on compassionate ground, ultimately, the request also been
rejected as early as on 30.09.2008 and the relevant paragraph of the said
order reads as follows:
@2/ kDjhuuJ nfhhpf;if fdpt[ld;
ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ Vw;fdnt. fUiz mog;gilapy;
ntiy tha;gg
; [ nfhhp tpz;zg;gpj;Js;s xU
thhpRjhuUf;F gjpyhf ntbwhU thhpRjhuUf;F
ntiytha;gg
; [ nfhUk; nfhhpf;ifia mnk Kjepiy
thpif vz;zpy; ghprPypf;f Vjthd tHpKiw
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
tpjpKiwfspy; ,y;iy/ ,Ug;gpDk; ,t;thhpaf;
fojk; br/F/th-gkep-epk2-4847-2008 ehs; 18/02/2008
,y; Vw;fdnt ntiy tha;gg
; [ nfhhpa[s;s
jpUkjp/n$/njtfpf;F ntiy tha;gg
; [ nfhug;god;
mLj;j fl;l gzpakh;jJ
; jypd;nghJ mtiu
gzpakh;jJ
; tJ gw;wp ghprPypf;fg;gLk; vd;W
bjhptpj;jpUe;Jk; kPz;Lk; khw;W thhprjhuUf;F
fUiz mog;gilapy; ntiy tha;gg
; [
nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ/ jw;nghJ eilKiwapYs;s tpjp
Kiwapd;go mtuJ nfhhpf;if ghprPyidf;F
Vw;gi
[ lajy;y vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@
5. While considering the claim for employment on compassionate
ground, the Apex Court, in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union
of India and others reported in (2011 (4) SCC 209), has discussed about
the factors that have to be borne in mind. Relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:
"20. Thus while considering a claim for
employment on compassionate ground, the following
factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be
made in the absence of rules of regulations issued by
the Government or a public authority. The request
is to be considered strictly in accordance with the
governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
with any authority to make compassionate
appointment de-hors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate
employment must be preferred without undue
delay and has to be considered within a
reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate
ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the
family on account of the death or medical
invalidation of the bread-winner while in service.
Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be
granted as a matter of course by way of largesse
irrespective of the financial condition of the
deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time
of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is
permissible only to one of the dependants of the
deceased/incapacitated employee viz. Parents,
spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and
such appointments should be only to the lowest
category that is Class III and IV posts."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the view that firstly, there is a delay of more than two decades. Secondly,
the request of the petitioner's mother to provide appointment on
compassionate appointment to her son, namely, the writ petitioner was
rejected by the impugned order dated 30.09.2008, which has not been
challenged either by the mother or by the writ petitioner/appellant herein.
That being the case, we are of the view that no relief can be granted in the
present appeal.
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
7. Though it is pointed out that in paragraph No.16 of the order,
the learned Single Judge has observed that it is open to the respondents
herein to pass appropriate orders on the application for compassionate
appointment filed by the mother of the writ petitioner, that obseration was
not required at all as the mother of the writ petitioner had already attained
the age of superannuation and that the mother of the petitioner had already
given up her right asking the respondents to give employment to the
appellant/ writ petitioner.
8. In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (M.S.Q.J.)
nv 02.03.2022
To
1. The Managing Director,
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
& Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The General Manager,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
& Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chindadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
nv
W.A. No. 346 of 2022
02.03.2022
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
