Madras High Court
The Personal Assistant To ... vs Muthulakshmi on 16 November, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
and C.M.P.(MD) No.882 of 2017
1.The Personal Assistant to District Collector
(Rural Development)
Theni District.
2.The Commissioner / Block Development Officer,
Antipatti Panchayat Union,
Antipatti, Theni District.
3.The Assistant Block Development Officer,
Theni District.
4.The President,
Sitharpatti Panchayat,
Sitharpatti, Antipatti Taluk,
Theni District. ... Appellants/Respondents
-Vs.-
Muthulakshmi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 16.11.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.19151 of 2016
on the file of this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated
16.11.2016, passed in W.P.(MD) No.19151 of 2016.
2. The claim of the respondent, seeking appointment on
compassionate ground was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the
ground that the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.102, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 13.07.2015,
providing compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased
employees served in Panchayats.
3. The husband of the respondent was holding the post of
Secretary in the 4th appellant Sittharpatti Panchayat and died on
18.06.2012, while he was in service. The respondent submitted an
application seeking appointment on 13.08.2012 and the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that there was no
scheme to provide compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the
deceased employees of the Panchayat. The said order came to be
challenged and the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order
made a finding that the respondent is entitled for compassionate
appointment since it is a right conferred on the legal heirs of the deceased
employee.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the appellants made a submission that as on the date of death of deceased
employee, the scheme of compassionate appointment was not in force.
The scheme was introduced by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.102,
dated 13.07.2015, prospectively. Therefore, the said scheme cannot be
extended retrospectively so as to provide compassionate appointment to
the legal heirs of the deceased employee who died prior to the issuance
of G.O.(Ms) No.102, dated 13.07.2015.
5. We have considered the issues raised between the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
6. Admittedly, the scheme of compassionate appointment was
not in force at the time of death of the deceased employee. The scheme
was introduced in the year 2015. The said G.O.(Ms) No.102 states that
the order will take effect from the date of passing and therefore, the
scheme which was introduced cannot be implemented retrospectively and
if such concessionary schemes were implemented with retrospective
effect, the same will result in opening of Pandora's box and the
Government cannot be in a position to provide appointments to all those
legal heirs of the deceased employees who died prior to the introduction
of scheme of compassionate appointment.
7. Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and
cannot be construed as a right confirmed. Concession is to be granted by
scrupulously following the terms and conditions stipulated. Efflux of
time is also a ground to deny appointment on compassionate grounds
since the penurious circumstances arose on account of sudden death of an
employee became vanished. Thus, we do not find any reason to sustain
the order impugned before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
8. In the present case, the husband of the respondent died on
18.06.2012 and during the relevant point of time, the scheme of
compassionate appointment was not in force and more so, the respondent
is aged 47 years now and considering the facts and circumstances we are
inclined to consider the Writ Appeal filed by the State.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 16.11.2016, passed in W.P.
(MD) No.19151 of 2016 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S.J.,] & [V.L.N.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 16.11.2023
Index :Yes/No
SJ
To
1.The Personal Assistant to District Collector
(Rural Development)
Theni District.
2.The Commissioner / Block Development Officer,
Antipatti Panchayat Union,
Antipatti, Theni District.
3.The Assistant Block Development Officer,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
SJ
4.The President,
Sitharpatti Panchayat,
Sitharpatti, Antipatti Taluk,
Theni District.
W.A.(MD) No.93 of 2017
16.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
