Madras High Court
M.Siranjeevi vs The Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 8 November, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.17918 of 2017
M.Siranjeevi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Zonal director,
Municipal Administration,
Madurai – 625 016.
3.The Commissioner,
Theni-Allinagaram Municipality,
Theni – 625 531. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his
proceedings Na.Ka.No.2024/2016/C1 dated 03.05.2017 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the
petitioner on compassionate grounds in any one of the post in the third
respondent Municipality by considering the petitioner's Educational
Qualification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For R-1 and R-2 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia,
Special Government Pleader.
For R-3 : Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 03.05.2017
and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the
petitioner on Compassionate ground in any one of the post in third respondent
Municipality by considering the petitioner's educational qualification.
2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner's father
namely late S.Murugan was employed as Water Tank Watchman in the third
respondent Municipality. On 30.10.2002, the petitioner's father died leaving
behind the petitioner's mother namely, Dhanalakshmi, the petitioner who is the
first son and the petitioner's brother namely, Sanjeevi the second son. The
petitioner's father was only a bread winner. After the demise of the petitioner's
father, his mother submitted a representation dated 25.11.2002 within the
prescribed time in person requesting to provide employment in anyone of the
post on compassionate grounds. But the petitioner's age was about 8 years and
his brother was aged about 6 years. Since there was no reply, the petitioner's
mother again submitted another representation dated 10.01.2003. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
meanwhile, the petitioner attained majority and again he submitted another
representation on 30.12.2013 through registered post to provide compassionate
employment. The petitioner had completed B.E., Civil Engineering degree and
his brother is also studying Engineering course. After completion of degree,
the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 25.04.2016 and the third
respondent forwarded to the first respondent through second respondent for
considering the claim of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted
reminder dated 17.04.2017. The third respondent vide impugned order dated
03.05.2017 rejected the application stating that the application is time barred
and belated one. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the petitioner was
minor at the time of death of his father. The respondents have not received any
representation from the petitioner's mother either on 25.11.2002 or on
10.01.2003 as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted
application belatedly and hence it was rejected. Therefore, the respondents
prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
4. Heard Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the first and
second respondents and Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the third
respondent.
5. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent,
the then Commissioner received the petitioner's representation and forwarded
the same to the first respondent for consideration. However, the Commissioner,
the third respondent herein has passed the impugned order without knowing
that the petitioner's application was forwarded to the first respondent. This
contention was refuted by the third respondent counsel by stating that the first
respondent after receiving the communication from the third respondent had
directed the third respondent to pass appropriate orders based on the existing
Government Orders. Therefore, the subsequent Commissioner has passed the
order based on the existing order and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The
next contention is that the petitioner has submitted application within the
period of 3 years after attaining majority, therefore, the same cannot be
considered as belated application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
6. The issue of compassionate appointment was referred to the Full
Bench of this Court by framing the following question for reference:
"Whether the view taken in A.Kamatchi's case holding that an
application for compassionate appointment made even beyond
three years of the death of the deceased needs consideration, is
the correct law or the judgment of the Division Bench in
N.Renugadevi's case, where a contradictory view has been
taken, is the correct law?''
The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos.7016 of 2011
and batch by judgment dated 11.03.2020 has considered all the previous
judgments and discussed in detail after taking note of various Government
order / guidelines in relation to compassionate appointment. The scope of
belated application by minors attaining majority or other circumstances was
considered and the Hon'ble Full Bench had categorically held that the three
years period ought to be taken into account from the date of death of the
deceased employee and it cannot be calculated from the date of attaining
majority. Following the Hon’ble Full Bench judgment, the Hon’ble Division
Bench had passed orders in W.A.(MD) No.682 of 2022 in the case of V.Deepika
Vs. the District Collector and others, W.A.(MD) No.457 of 2022 in the case of
P.Babyshalini Vs. the Principal Secretary and others and W.A.(MD) No.769 of
2022 in the case of K.Nambirajan Vs. Divisional Engineer and others, wherein,
the claim of the legal heirs was rejected and held that the application was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
submitted belatedly beyond the period of three years and the three years period
ought to be calculated from the date of death of the Government servant. Any
claim beyond the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be entertained.
7. The object and purpose of the compassionate appointment is to
provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased
Government servant, so as to protect them against any form of indigent because
of the death of the sole bread winner of the family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has taken a consistent view that the family members of the deceased employee
should not be considered for appointment on compassionate basis beyond the
period fixed under the scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, has held that
when the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to see that the family
gets immediate relief, then the application filed by the dependent of the
deceased employee after he attains majority cannot be entertained. Considering
the belated applications will be contrary to the scheme framed by the
Government. It will also be contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Full Bench has held that the scheme does not permit entertaining
an application by a dependent after attaining majority, hence the period of
limitation ought to be considered from the date of death alone and not from the
date of attaining majority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
8. Therefore, this Court following the judgment of the Hon’ble Full
Bench and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several
cases, is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment cannot be considered for three years period after he attains
majority, but it ought to be considered from the date of death of the deceased
employee. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is rejected.
9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
08.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
To
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Zonal director,
Municipal Administration,
Madurai – 625 016.
3.The Commissioner,
Theni-Allinagaram Municipality,
Theni – 625 531.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD).No.21643 of 2017
08.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
