P.Krishnaveni vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2022 Latest Caselaw 17612 Mad

                                                                             W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED : 15.11.2022

                                                  CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

                                          W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015
                                                    and
                                         M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

                P.Krishnaveni                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                     Vs.

                1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                  Represented by its Secretary,
                  Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme,
                  Fort St.George,
                  Chennai – 600 009.

                2.The Director,
                  The Directorate of Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme,
                  Chepauk,
                  Chennai.

                3.The Director,
                  The Directorate of School Education,
                  College Road,
                  Chennai – 6.

                4.The District Collector,
                  Viruthunagar District,
                  Viruthunagar.

                5.The District Planning Officer,
                  Integrated Child Development Services,
                  Viruthunagar District,
                  Viruthunagar.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                              W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015


                6.The District Educational Officer,
                  District Educational Office,
                  Viruthunagar District,
                  Viruthunagar.                                            ... 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 from the fifth and sixth respondents relating to the impugned orders
                passed in O.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2092/A1/2014 dated 09.12.2014 and A.Thi.Mu.No.
                2034/A1/15 dated 25.06.2015 respectively, quash the same and consequently
                direct the respondents to provide the petitioner compassionate appointment
                either in the post of Laboratory Assistant or in any other suitable post, within a
                specified period as may be fixed by this Court.


                (Prayer amended vide order dated 15.11.2022 in W.M.P.(MD).No.9106 of 2017
                in W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015)

                                      For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Arunachalam

                                      For Respondents : Mr.C.Baskaran,
                                                        Government Advocate.



                                                       ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 09.12.2014

and dated 25.06.2015 and consequently direct the respondents to provide

compassionate appointment in any one of the existing 710 vacancies in the post

of Laboratory Assistant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

2. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner had filed amendment petition

whereby, the petitioner is seeking to amend the prayer to grant compassionate

appointment either in the post of Lab Assistant or in any other suitable post.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, this Court allowed the said

amendment petition.

3. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner's mother

namely, K.Kandammal died on 30.09.1996 while she was serving in the first

respondent Office. The petitioner's mother was appointed as Children Welfare

Organizer from 10.05.1978, thereafter, promoted as Nutrition Supervisor. While

in service the petitioner’s mother died due to illness leaving behind the

petitioner's father and three daughters including the petitioner as legal heirs and

the petitioner herein is the eldest daughter. The petitioner was 9 years old at the

time of death of the petitioner's mother, hence she could not apply at the age of

9. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted application seeking for

compassionate appointment, but no response was evoked thereof. Aggrieved

over, this petition is filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking

compassionate appointment and it was rejected on the ground that the

application is beyond the period of three years limitation. Hence the petitioner’s

claim was rejected as belatedly application and therefore, the respondents

prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.

5. Heard Mr.S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.C.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

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.

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 she 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand

closed.

                                                                             15.11.2022
                                                                                (2/2)
                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes/ No
                Nsr

                To
                1.The Secretary,
                  The Government of Tamil Nadu,

Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director, The Directorate of Social Welfare and Nutritious Scheme, Chepauk, Chennai.

3.The Director, The Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

4.The District Collector, Viruthunagar District, Viruthunagar.

5.The District Planning Officer, Integrated Child Development Services, Viruthunagar District, Viruthunagar.

6.The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office, Viruthunagar District, Viruthunagar.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

S.SRIMATHY, J.

Nsr

W.P.(MD).No.11927 of 2015

15.11.2022 (2/2)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis