Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs R. Thulasiraman on 11 March, 2022
1 W.A.No.513 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.513 of 2022
and CMP.No.3703 of 2022
1. The Secretary to Government
Agriculture Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Agriculture
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Nagapattinam, 611 001. ... Appellants
Vs
R. Thulasiraman ... Respondent
Prayer:Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 22.06.2021 made in WP.No.16821 of 2015 and
allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi
Special Govt.Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.A.No.513 of 2022
For Respondent : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi
for M/s.Santhanamani
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Instant writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22.06.2021
made in W.P.No.16821 of 2015.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father late
G.Ramachandran who was a Foreman in Agricultural Engineering
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, died while in service, pursuant to
which, the writ petitioner/respondent herein made a representation to
consider for compassionate appointment. Even though his brother was
employed in the Military services, the Government has appointed the writ
petitioner/respondent herein on 27.08.1981. Though G.O.Ms.No.988,
Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981 was implemented
for compassionate appointment with effect from 05.05.1982, the case of the
writ petitioner/respondent herein was considered for compassionate
appointment and as per the said G.O., one person in the family alone would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be entitled to compassionate appointment. On coming to know that the
brother of the writ petitioner was employed in the Military services, the
services of the petitioner were disengaged and the writ petitioner was
removed from service with effect from 04.08.1984.
3. It is further case of the writ petitioner that he made several
representations to consider his case for re-appointment and during that time,
the Government issued a G.O.1044 Labour & Employment Department
dated 23.11.1990 and the relevant G.O. is extracted as below:-
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU
ABSTRACT
Public Services – Employment assistance to families of
deceased Government servants – Procedure of recruitment – further
instructions – Amendment to G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and
Employment Dept. dt : 02.05.1981 – issued.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT.
G.O.Ms.No.1044 Dated : 23.11.90
Read :-
G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment, dt : 2.5.81.
Order :-
The following amendment shall be issued to the
G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment, dated 2.5.81.
AMENDMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The following paragraph shall be incorporated as para 3(1) in
G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment, dated 2.5.1981.
'3(1) provided, that if any of the dependent dependents of
deceased Government Servants is / are employed in Military
service any one of the other dependents is eligible for
appointment in Government Department and Government
Undertakings under Compassionate Grounds'.
- by order of the Governor -
Sd/- M.Kumaravelu,
Deputy Secretary to Government.
4. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that pursuant to the said
notification, the writ petitioner was given employment afresh with effect
from 22.05.1992. Accepting the contention of the writ petitioner, the learned
single Judge has held that there was a removal order passed against the writ
petitioner in 1984 and in the light of the G.O. dated 23.11.1990, the writ
petitioner has been re-appointed in service and granted all the promotional
benefits with effect from 1981 which shall be taken into account for the
purpose of pension and promotion / notional benefits, but, however no
arrears need to be paid as the writ petitioner had only two years of service on
the date of passing the order. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred
this appeal.
5. Mrs.Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vehemently contended that when G.O.(Ms).No.1044, Labour and
Employment Department dated 23.11.1990 has specifically incorporated the
provisions regarding the eligibility of one other person/dependant for
compassionate appointment based on which, the writ petitioner was given
reappointment on 23.11.1990 with effect from 23.11.1992, the writ
petitioner is entitled to the benefits. She further contended that since the
aforesaid provision is deemed to have come into effect from 02.05.1981, all
the benefits have got to be extended to the writ petitioner.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
Appellants submitted that the terminal order passed in the year 1984 has not
been challenged and as such, it is not open to the writ petitioner to ask for
retrospective regularisation of his service. She further submitted that based
on the revised notification dated 23.11.1990 he was re-appointed on
compassionate ground and the writ petitioner has no right to claim benefit
based on the amended notification.
7. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The issue in this case revolves around as to whether
G.O.Ms.No.1044 dated 23.11.1990 incorporating the Clause 3 (1) can be
given retrospective effect or not. A reading of the amendment would make it
very clear that the provision has been incorporated in the G.O. and it has no
retrospective effect at all. If such retrospective effect is given, it will amount
to opening a pandora box and several litigations will mushroom. Though the
writ petitioner was removed from service on the ground of his brother's
employment in Military service based on the subsequent amendment he has
been re-inducted into service as fresher with effect from 22.05.1992.
9. In the present case on hand, as the petitioner was employed with
effect from 27.08.1981 and there is no averment that the writ petitioner has
suppressed the fact about his brother's employment, we are of the view that
in the light of the G.O. dated 23.11.1990, the petitioner shall be entitled to
past services to be considered with effect from 1981 in the present post in
which he has been employed as Junior Assistant. However, the order of the
learned Single Judge insofar as it grants the relief of considering the case of
the petitioner for notional promotion on par with his Juniors does not hold
good. For the risk of repetition, we make it very clear that the entire past
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
services with effect from 27.08.1981 shall be counted only for the purpose
of pension and other terminal benefits in the post of Junior Assistant.
10. Writ Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(S.V.N.J.,)
(M.S.Q.J.,)
11.03.2022
dpq
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dpq
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Agriculture Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Agriculture
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Nagapattinam, 611 001.
W.A.No.513 of 2022
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
