Madras High Court
R.L.Yesuraja vs The Commissioner on 6 September, 2022
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
R.L.Yesuraja .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Chennai Metropolitan,
Ripon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
Department of Solid Waste Management,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the proceedings of the second respondent Thi.Ka.Mae,Thu.Po.Pa.Sa.Na
Ka.No.A4/30/2015 dated 16.07.2016 and quash the same and further
direct him to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis as per the
representation dated 02.11.2015.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajasekhar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinath, Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the second
respondent Thi.Ka.Mae,Thu.Po.Pa.Sa.Na Ka.No.A4/30/2015 dated
16.07.2016 and quash the same and further direct him to appoint the
petitioner on compassionate basis as per the representation dated
02.11.2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner's father Mr.R.Lakshmaiah, had worked as Gate
Keeper under the second respondent and while he was in service, died
on 01.06.2010 leaving behind his wife, two daughters and son
(petitioner). The petitioner's mother had given a representation to the
first respondent on 04.05.2011 and another representation on
16.05.2013 seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
second respondent, vide proceedings dated 06.06.2014 has rejected the
claim stating that the petitioner had not completed 18 years, within
three years time, from the date of death of his father. After attaining
majority, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 02.11.2015,
seeking employment under compassionate ground. But, the second
respondent had rejected his application vide impugned order dated
16.07.2016. Hence this writ petition.
4. It is an admitted fact that when the father of the petitioner died
on 01.06.2010, the petitioner was a minor and he was not eligible for
appointment. Therefore, the request of the petitioner's mother dated
04.05.2011 and 16.05.2013 were rejected stating that her son had not
attained majority within three years time from the date of death of her
husband. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation on
03.09.2015, i.e. after a period of more than 5 years, seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds. It is beyond the prescribed
time limit of 3 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
5. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a decision of this Court
in Venkatesan versus The Chairman, TNEB, Chennai and others ”
in W.P.No.33500 of 2014, dated 11.10.2018, wherein, it has been
observed as under:
“4. This Court is of an opinion that the compassionate appointment
is a special scheme and the scheme of compassionate appointment
was introduced to mitigate the penurious circumstances arising on
account of the sudden death
of the Government employee. Thus, the scheme of compassionate
appointment must be extended to the legal heirs
of the deceased employee to protect their livelihood, immediately
after the death of the deceased employee. Thus, the appointment to
be granted on compassionate grounds within a reasonable period
of three years or atleast within a period of five years. Beyond
that, legal presumption would be that the penurious
circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the
Government employee became vanished. It is not as if the
compassionate appointment can be claimed as a matter of right
to provide one appointment to one family of the deceased
Government employee. Such a scheme can never be accepted, in
view of the fact that the scheme of appointment itself, is in violation
of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The scheme being a
special one was introduced in violation of the constitutional
principles. Therefore, the same must be implemented strictly in
accordance with the terms and conditions. ....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
6. In fact, there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time
as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there
is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate
appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. In this
regard, it is worthwhile to refer to a decision reported in State of
Manipur Vs. Md.Rajaodin reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 11 of its judgment, held as
under:-
“In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others
(1989 (4) SCC 468) it was observed that in all claims of
appointments on compassionate grounds, there should not be any
delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of
the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should,
therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in
distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of
his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage
specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor
becomes a major he can be appointed without any time
consciousness or limit. The above view was re-iterated in
Phoolwati (Smt.) vs. Union of India and others (1991) Supp. (2)
SCC 689) and Union of India and others vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995
(6) SCC 476). In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs.
Pushpendra Kumar and others (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed
that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be
insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source
of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both
ends, meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of
the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for
appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for
ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an
exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with
the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to
seek appointment against the post which would have been
available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made
on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased
employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general
provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an
exception and there nullity the main provision by taking away
completely the right conferred by the main provision.”
7. The identical issue came up before the Honourable Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1749 of 2019 (Sudhanthira Devi vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu and others) and by Judgment dated
03.09.2019, following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court,
the Division Bench has held that applications for compassionate
appointment submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be
entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
8. Therefore, the scheme of providing compassionate
appointment can be extended only to eligible member of the family and
not to an ineligible person. Scheme has not been framed to provide
employment assistance as and when the son or daughter of the
deceased employee attains majority. Under the scheme, the department
is not obligated to keep any post vacant, till the applicant attains
majority or to consider his candidature on attaining majority. Scheme
only enables those who are eligible and satisfy all the eligibility criteria
including age, within three years from the date of death.
9. In the light of the above decisions supra, this writ petition
cannot be entertained for appointment under compassionate ground.
Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned rejection order dated
16.07.2016. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
06.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
mst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
To
1. The Commissioner,
Chennai Metropolitan,
Ripon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
Department of Solid Waste Management,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
W.P.No.23602 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
