Shri Muniasamy vs The Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 4300 Mad

                                                                          REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 17.04.2023

                                                        CORAM :

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                             and
                         THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                            REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021 in
                                              W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021 in
                                              W.P(MD)No.21724 of 2018

                Shri Muniasamy                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                          vs.

                1. The Director,
                Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
                DMS Campus,
                Chennai-600 006.

                2. The Deputy Director,
                Health Services,
                Thoothukudi District,
                Thoothukudi.

                3. The Block Medical Officer,
                Primary Health Centre,
                Eral-628 801,
                Thoothukudi District.                                       ... Respondents


                          PRAYER : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule read
                with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order
                made in W.A(MD)No.1972 of 2021 dated 28.10.2021.


                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/6
                                                                           REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021


                                  For Respondents    : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
                                                          Government Advocate



                                                        ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Review is sought for of the judgment of the Division Bench

dated 28.10.2021, wherein, the Division Bench had affirmed the

rejection of the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the

order refusing his request for compassionate appointment.

2. It is a very unfortuntae case where the petitioner lost his

mother when he was two years old and his father also disappeared. A

suit was filed for a declaration that his father is civilly dead and the

same was decreed in the year 2009. However, the petitioner sought for

compassionate appointment on 06.06.2017 on attaining the age of 18

years. The same was rejected by the authority on the ground that it is

made three years after the death of the Government Servant. The

same was affirmed in appeal, particularly relying upon the judgment of

the Full Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.7016 of 2011 dated

11.03.2020. Aggrieved, the petitioner is on review.

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

REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021

3. Mr.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would draw our attention to the observations of the Full

Bench in Paragraph 13 of the said judgment of the Full Bench which

read as follows:-

''13. In the light of the above we find that the judgment in the case of A.Kamatchi v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2013) 2 CWC 758 is not only contrary to the law laid down in the case of E.Ramasamy v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, but it also has, as indicated by our brother, Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his judgment, misconstrued the same. In view of what has been indicated above we are also of the view that the period of three years is a rationale and reasonable period under the relevant Government Orders and the rules. We may, however, observe that it is open to the State Government to make any provision for relaxation of the period in exceptionally rare cases on the principles as indicated herein above.''

to contend that this is a fit case where the State must consider

relaxation.

4. We must point out that just prior to the judgment of the

Full bench dated 11.03.2020, the Government has come out with a

comprehensive scheme for compassionate appointment in

G.O(Ms)No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated

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

REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021

23.01.2020, prescribing the time limit as three years from the date

of death of the Government servant. Relaxation is not a matter of

right. It has to be provided for in the statute or the rules. In the

absence of such provision for relaxation, we do not think that this

Court will be justified in directing relaxation. Moreover, we are not

hearing an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

We are on a review. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of

the record, the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised. The learned

counsel, despite his best efforts, is unable to point out an error

apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review.

5. Hence, this Review Application stands dismissed. No

costs.

(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) & (K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.) 17.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes bala

To

1. The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Campus, Chennai-600 006.

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

REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021

2. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3. The Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Eral-628 801, Thoothukudi District.

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

REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

bala

ORDER MADE IN REV.APLC(MD)No.170 of 2021 DATED : 17.04.2023

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