Madras High Court
R.Padmavathy vs Director General Of Police on 5 July, 2023
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
R.Padmavathy .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in
Na.Ka.No.Ka.A.Pa.Ni./248/64908/2016 dated 11.01.2017 issued by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same, direct the respondents to consider and pass
order on the application dated 07.12.2005.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Patrick
for Mr.K.R.Gunashekar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking interference with the order, dated 11.01.2017 issued by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai in
Na.Ka.No.Ka.A.Pa.Ni./248/64908/2016 and to direct the respondents to
consider and pass orders on the application, dated 07.12.2005, by which
application, the petitioner sought employment on compassionate basis
consequent to the death of her father who died on 04.08.1996.
2. The father of the petitioner, K.Ramesh, was serving as Police
Constable Grade II (No.10592) from the year 1986 and was attached to the
29th Platoon, Armed Reserve Police, Chennai City Police. He had been
removed from the service with effect from 06.12.1994 treating him as
having deserted the force. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated
against him by the second respondent / the Commissioner of Police by
proceedings in P.R.No.128/PRI (2)/94, dated 06.12.1994 under Rule 3(b) of
the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1995 for unauthorised absence of more than 21 days from 30.07.1994.
3. The father of the petitioner had challenged such initiation of
disciplinary proceedings and action taken consequent to that by filing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
O.A.No.6462 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at
Chennai.
4. Pending the said proceedings, the father of the petitioner died on
04.08.1996. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner, R.Indira, was
impleaded as a party and finally, by order dated 16.04.2004, the order of
removal from service of the father was set aside. The father died in the year
1996 during when he was suffering the order of dismissal from service and
when such dismissal was under consideration of the Administrative
Tribunal at Chennai.
5. The Administrative Tribunal could have upheld the dismissal or
could have set aside the dismissal. Therefore, till the proceedings were
completed by the Administrative Tribunal which was completed by
judgment, dated 16.04.2004, the dependents of K.Ramesh / father of the
petitioner, could never have applied, seeking compassionate appointment.
Even if they had applied, it would have been summarily rejected by the
respondents who could have justified rejection since the father had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
dismissed from the service and the application seeking reconsideration of
the same was pending before the Administrative Tribunal.
6. As stated, the Administrative Tribunal passed final judgment on
16.04.2004.
7. Thereafter, an application, dated 07.12.2005 was filed seeking
compassionate employment. The rules stipulate that such application
should be made within a period of three years from the date of death. But,
in this case, it was not possible because on the date of death, the father of
the petitioner was deemed to be dismissed from the service which was
pending reconsideration or pending challenge before the Administrative
Tribunal. Therefore, the effective date, from which, such an application
could be made, would be only from the date of the judgment of the
Administrative Tribunal namely, 16.04.2004. I hold that the petitioner had,
therefore, applied for employment within the period of three years.
8. In two separate communications dated 31.03.2009 in
Na.Ka.No.K.A.Pa.Ni.1/478/110747/2005 and another communication, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
15.07.2011 in Na.Ka.No.K.A.Pa.Ni.478/110747/2005 both issued by the
Commissioner of Police, Chennai, this fact had been examined and the
possibility of giving a representation only after final judgment had been
passed by the Tribunal had been recognised.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader, however, drew notice to
the provisions of the Government Order namely, G.O.Ms.No.155 Labour
and Employment (Q1) Department issued in the year 2010 which stipulates
that any application for compassionate employment should be given within
a period of three years from the date of death. The learned Special
Government Pleader stated that even if the matter has been pending before
the Administrative Tribunal, still, an application atleast should have been
made within a period of three years by the petitioner or by her mother.
10. In the impugned order, which had rejected the application, the
stand taken is that the father of the petitioner had died on 04.08.1996 and
after a period of 9 years, the application had been given in the year 2007.
But, however, in view of the fact that the Administrative Tribunal had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
passed the order only in the year 2004, I hold that he application is well
within the time.
11. The learned Special Government Pleader further pointed out that
the age of the petitioner was also less than 18 years. But, once again the
entire issue will have to be reconsidered only by the respondents in
accordance with aforementioned Government Order and subsequent
Government Orders, if issued.
12. In view of these facts, I would allow the Writ Petition and set
aside the impugned order and place a further direction on the second
respondent to consider the application, dated 07.12.2005 given by the
petitioner herein and examine the rules and regulations governing service
and governing provision of employment under compassionate grounds and
provide necessary employment to the petitioner herein in accordance with
her qualification. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of
16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any
clarifications are required, notice may be issued to the petitioner regarding
those clarifications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
13. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
05.07.2023
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai - 600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
grs
W.P.No.15504 of 2017
05.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
