Madras High Court
S.Muthukumar vs The Secretary To Government on 3 July, 2023
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
S.Muthukumar ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Public Library,
No.737/1, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Pattern to set
aside the order dated 14.09.2017 made in W.P.No.6271 of 2015 and
allow this writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/6
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by Mr.R.SURESH KUMAR.,J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the
Writ Court dated 14.09.2017 made in W.P.No.6271 of 2015.
2. The appellant was writ petitioner before the Writ Court. His
case was that, his father was working in the second respondent's office as
Office Assistant (OA) i.e., at Library and during his service, he died in
harness on 19.05.2004.
3. At the time of appellant's father died, the appellant was 13 years
old therefore, he was waiting to reach majority, therefore on his behalf,
the mother i.e., widow of the employee had made an application seeking
compassionate appointment to his son on 02.01.2008 admittedly.
4. However, as per the procedure, which is in vogue seeking for
any compassionate appointment, the application should have been made
by the legal heir either the widow or the son or daughter, who must have
been major within the three years period from the date of death of an
employee.
5. Herein the case in hand, the death occurred on 19.05.2004,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/6
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
therefore the three years period was upto 19.05.2007. Within the said
three years period there has been admittedly no application made since
the same has been made only on 02.01.2008. First of all, which is beyond
the three years period.
6. The reason according to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant is that, the petitioner/appellant, who is the son of the deceased
employee was minor at the time of his father died in the year 2004 i.e., he
was only 13 years old.
7. Even on 02.01.2008, when the belated application was made on
his behalf by the wife of the employee i.e., mother of the
petitioner/appellant, even then he did not reach the majority, therefore, at
no stretch of imagination, his application should be treated as valid
application for the purpose of consideration for compassionate
appointment to him.
8. Therefore his application was rejected through the order passed
by the Department, which was impugned before the Writ Court.
9. The learned Judge, who heard the matter at length has passed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/6
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
order on 14.09.2017 approving the stand taken by the respondent
Department rejecting the plea raised by the petitioner/appellant for
getting compassionate appointment on various reasons including these
two reasons i.e., belated application and at the time making the
application, the petitioner/appellant was a minor.
10. These two reasons, which are admittedly the factual matrix
would make dis-entitle the petitioner/appellant to seek for compassionate
appointment. In this context, the law is well settled that if an application
is made beyond the three years period as provided under the statute,
which envisages the scheme of compassionate appointment, then such an
application would be rejected out rightly. Like that, at the time of making
the application i.e., well within the three years period, the person for
whom such a compassionate appointment is sought for must have the
minimum qualification and he must have attained the majority and if the
person does not attained the majority even on that ground also, the
employer need not wait till the legal heir reaches majority.
11. This view has already been taken by the law courts, which has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/6
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
been settled by more than one judgment therefore, we do not find any
error on the approach of the learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ
petition filed by the petitioner/appellant, which is impugned herein.
12. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this
appeal, accordingly it fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
03.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Public Library,
No.737/1, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/6
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
mp
Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019
03.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/6
