Madras High Court
M.Manimaran vs The District Educational Officer on 16 June, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
M.Manimaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Vedasandur,
Dindigul District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Guziliamparai,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order in Moo/Ma/No.1105 / A4/2019 dated
06.06.2019 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment
on compassionate ground within the time stipulated by this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis
For Respondents : Mr.V.Omprakash,
Government Advocate.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 06.06.2019 on the file
of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct
the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
ground within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. The petitioner's father who was serving as Secondary Grade Teacher in
Panchayat Union School died on 28.03.1996 while he was in service, leaving
behind the petitioner, his mother and his elder sister as legal heirs. At the time
of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was one year old and his elder
sister was 3 years old. After attaining majority in the year 2014, the petitioner
submitted an application seeking for compassionate appointment. But his
application was rejected vide impugned order dated 06.06.2019. Aggrieved
over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking
compassionate appointment and it was rejected on the ground that the
application is beyond the period of three years limitation. Hence the petitioner’s
claim was rejected as belatedly application and therefore, the respondents
prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition.
4. Heard Mr.S.Louis, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.V.Omprakash, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
5. The issue of compassionate appointment was referred to the Full
Bench of this Court by framing the following question for reference:
"Whether the view taken in A.Kamatchi's case holding that an
application for compassionate appointment made even beyond
three years of the death of the deceased needs consideration, is
the correct law or the judgment of the Division Bench in
N.Renugadevi's case, where a contradictory view has been
taken, is the correct law?''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos.7016 of 2011
and batch by judgment dated 11.03.2020 has considered all the previous
judgments and discussed in detail after taking note of various Government
order / guidelines in relation to compassionate appointment. The scope of
belated application by minors attaining majority or other circumstances was
considered and the Hon'ble Full Bench had categorically held that the three
years period ought to be taken into account from the date of death of the
deceased employee and it cannot be calculated from the date of attaining
majority. Following the Hon’ble Full Bench judgment, the Hon’ble Division
Bench had passed orders in W.A.(MD) No.682 of 2022 in the case of V.Deepika
Vs. the District Collector and others, W.A.(MD) No.457 of 2022 in the case of
P.Babyshalini Vs. the Principal Secretary and others and W.A.(MD) No.769 of
2022 in the case of K.Nambirajan Vs. Divisional Engineer and others, wherein,
the claim of the legal heirs was rejected and held that the application was
submitted belatedly beyond the period of three years and the three years period
ought to be calculated from the date of death of the Government servant. Any
claim beyond the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
6. The object and purpose of the compassionate appointment is to
provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased
Government servant, so as to protect them against any form of indigent because
of the death of the sole bread winner of the family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has taken a consistent view that the family members of the deceased employee
should not be considered for appointment on compassionate basis beyond the
period fixed under the scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, has held that
when the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to see that the family
gets immediate relief, then the application filed by the dependent of the
deceased employee after he attains majority cannot be entertained. The belated
applications will be contrary to the scheme framed by the Government. It will
also be contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Full
Bench has held that the scheme does not permit entertaining an application by a
dependent after attaining majority, hence the period of limitation ought to be
considered from the date of death alone and not from the date of attaining
majority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
7. Therefore, this Court following the judgment of the Hon’ble Full
Bench and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several
cases, is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment cannot be considered since the petitioner had submitted after
attaining majority and the application is belated beyond three years when
calculated from the date of death of the deceased employee. Hence, the claim
of the petitioner is rejected.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
16.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Vedasandur,
Dindigul District.
2.The Block Educational Officer,
Guziliamparai,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD).No.17431 of 2019
16.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
