Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company vs P.Arun Gandhi on 9 August, 2023
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.23052 of 2019
The Oriental Insurance Company,
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
Division Office-2,
UTL Building, III Floor,
No.8, Esplanade,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs
1.P.Arun Gandhi
2.Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Company Affairs,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the final order dated 10.12.2011 made in W.P.No.21098 of 2006.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thayaparan
For R1 : Mr.S.Prabhu
For R2 : Mr.K.Gunasekar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the Writ
Court dated 10.12.2011 made in W.P.No.21098 of 2006.
2.One Panneerselvam was working at the appellant's office and he
died on 14.11.1996 suddenly while he was in service.
3.At the time of the death of the father of the first respondent
herein who was the writ petitioner since he was a minor, no application
was made to seek for compassionate appointment.
4.Subsequently only on 13.03.2006, application had been made to
seek for compassionate appointment. Since the same has not been
considered, the respondent/writ petitioner moved the Writ Court and
filed the said writ petition in W.P.No.21098 of 2006 seeking for a writ of
Mandamus directing the appellant Department to consider the case of the
first respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
5.The said writ petition having been considered was allowed by
the order of the learned Judge dated 10.12.2011 where the learned Judge
has stated that it cannot be stated that the delay is attributable on the part
of the son of the deceased employee because at the time of the death of
the employee admittedly the legal heir i.e., son of the deceased employee
was a minor. Therefore, after he attaining the majority he was able to
give such an application seeking for compassionate appointment only in
the year 2006. Therefore that has been mainly taken into account by the
learned Judge and ultimately, the learned Judge has allowed the writ
petition. Aggrieved over the same, this writ appeal has been directed.
6.However, Mr.A.Thayaparan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has brought to our notice that the compassionate appointment
scheme which was in vogue till 2002 itself has been modified and under
the said modification which has been issued on 23.07.2002, the scheme
for grant of monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate ground
appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee has been
brought in and has been executed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
7.Therefore, he would submit that well prior to the application that
has been made by the first respondent herein to seek for compassionate
appointment in 2006, the scheme itself has been modified into a
monetary compensation instead of compassionate appointment with
effect from 23.07.2002. Hence, the question of considering his
application even otherwise on merits for compassionate appointment did
not arise at the time.
8.However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly
submit that this position has not been brought to the notice of the learned
Judge who dealt with the writ petition.
9.We have heard Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the
first respondent who would submit that, since the first respondent was a
minor at the time his father died in 1996, there was no chance of him to
made any application being a minor, therefore only after he attains the
majority, he was able to make an application in the year 2006. Therefore,
merely because the scheme has been modified in the year 2002 in
between, the said Scheme that has been modified in the year 2002
cannot be taken into account because as on date of the death of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
employee i.e., in the year 1996 what was the Rule that was prevailing
shall alone be taken into account.
10.We have considered the said rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed
before this Court.
11.Insofar as making an application seeking compassionate
appointment, the law is well settled that the maximum period is three
years. Even though such a fixation has not been made in the scheme
formulated by the appellant Department, it is a settled proposition that
within three years period from the date of death of an employee, such an
application seeking appointment should have been made.
12.The reason being for fixing such a limitation is because the
very compassionate appointment scheme itself is only to bail out the
family which is in penurious circumstances and if that circumstances was
not prevailing for three years beyond which there is no scope for
considering any compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
13.In the present scheme, even though such a strict limitation has
not been prescribed it is to be noted that on 23.07.2002 the scheme itself
has been modified into a monetary compensation scheme and after three
years of that modification only i.e., in the year 2006 application seeking
compassionate appointment has been made by the first respondent.
14.Therefore, at no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the
said application submitted in the year 2006 should be get back to 1996.
15.The reason being that in 1996 admittedly the first respondent
was minor and therefore, there was no chance of considering his
application had it been filed even in the year 1996.
16.Therefore, if at all the respondent is entitled to seek for
monetary compensation under the modified scheme with effect from
23.07.2002, that can be pursued but that issue does not arise because the
death occurred for the employee in the year 1996 and 27 long years have
gone. Therefore, at this juncture whether such kind of persuasion is
possible is a question for which we do no want to express our mind and it
is for the respondent and the appellant Department to decide mutually.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
17.Insofar as the merits of the case seeking compassionate
appointment and a direction has been given to that effect by the learned
Judge through the impugned order is concerned, we feel that for the
reason stated above, the said order would not stand in the legal scrutiny.
Therefore, we are of the firm view that the said order is liable to be
interfered with.
18.In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ appeal
is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
09.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
cse
To
Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Company Affairs,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
cse
Writ Appeal No.3590 of 2019
09.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/8
