Madras High Court
P.Iyappan vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 November, 2023
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2594 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2594 of 2023
P.Iyappan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
2.The District Collector
Office of District Collector
Vellore District, Vellore
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Vellore District, Vellore
4.The Tahsildar
Taluk Office
Pernampet, Vellore District .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 12.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.2599 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Kirubanantham
For Respondents : Mr.E.Sundaram
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.A.No.2594 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.2599 of 2020, has
preferred this appeal, assailing the order of dismissal dated 12.07.2022 passed
by the learned Judge in the said writ petition.
2.According to the appellant, his father late K.Perumal, who was
employed as Village Assistant in Kizhpatti Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore
District, died on 14.12.2012, while he was in service. At the time of death of his
father, the appellant was a minor and therefore, his mother (wife of the
deceased) filed an application on 21.07.2014 seeking appointment on
compassionate grounds. Thereafter, on attaining the age of majority, he made
another application on 10.06.2019 before the authorities. Since the same did not
evoke any response, the appellant submitted a representation dated 16.10.2019.
Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.2599 of 2020 for a direction to the authorities to
consider and pass orders on his representation dated 16.10.2019 and to appoint
him in any suitable post commensurate with his qualification, consequent to the
death of his father Perumal on 14.12.2012, while serving as Village Assistant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent Department. The learned Judge, by order dated 12.07.2022,
dismissed the aforesaid writ petition, on the ground that the appellant had not
attained the age of majority at the time of submitting his application for
compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has
been filed by the writ petitioner.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the death of
his father, the appellant made the application seeking compassionate
appointment within the limitation period, which was also forwarded by the 2nd
respondent to the respondents 3 and 4 for their appropriate action, by
proceedings dated 06.10.2016. Further, the family of the appellant is in indigent
circumstances. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Judge erred in
rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground that at the time of submitting
the application for compassionate appointment, the appellant had not attained
the age of majority. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the
impugned order passed by the learned Judge and for a direction to the
authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that at the time of making application by the appellant for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compassionate appointment, the appellant has not fulfilled the criteria specified
in G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 10.12.2014. However, in view of the indigent
circumstances of the appellant's family, a proposal was sent to the Government
on 22.04.2019, seeking age relaxation. Taking note of these facts, the learned
Judge has passed the impugned order of dismissal, which does not require any
interference in the hands of this Court. It is also submitted that Compassionate
Appointment Scheme is a non-statutory Scheme and it is only a concession and
it cannot be claimed as a matter of right to be enforced through writ
proceedings. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record
carefully and meticulously.
6.It is evident from the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers that
the appellant's mother filed an application for compassionate appointment on
21.07.2014, in view of the fact that the appellant was a minor at the time of
death of his father. On the other hand, the learned Judge observed that the
application for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 10.12.2014. But, the fact remained that considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
indigent circumstances of the appellant's family, the authorities sent a proposal
to the Government on 22.04.2019, seeking age relaxation. At this juncture, it
may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court, in which, one of us is a
member (RMDJ) in the case of Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram
District vs. H.Sridevagi, made in W.A(MD)No.1063 of 2022 dated 20.09.2022.
The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"5.The only contention of the appellant is that the respondent did not
make any application within three years from the date of death of the
Government Servant. Perusal of records shows that the respondent is the
daughter of the Government employee, who died on 07.01.2015 and the wife of
the deceased submitted application on 18.11.2015 seeking compassionate
appointment well within three years from the date of death of deceased, but it
was not acted upon. Thereafter, she died on 03.01.2016. Since the family of
the petitioner was in penurious circumstances even before attaining majority,
the petitioner submitted application on 26.12.2017 which was rejected by the
appellant, stating that the respondent had not completed the age of 18 years.
Thereafter, on attaining majority, she again made application on 21.09.2019.
6.The Writ Court relied upon a decision of the Divison Bench of this
Court reported in (2013) 8 MLJ 190 (P. Sathiaraman vs. The Secretary to
Government and Ors), wherein it has been held as follows:-
"7.In T. Meer Ismail Ali V. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Chennai, (MANU/TN/0337/2004 : 2004 (3) CTC 120) this Court held as
under:
I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner-s case deserve
consideration inasmuch as he had diligently made a claim once in the year
1997 and thereafter, immediately after attaining the age of 18, in the year
2000 and in such circumstances, rejection of his application on the
ground that it was not made within three years was not justified.
8. The decision of this Court in Meer Ismail Ali (cited supra) was
upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 48 of 2004 dated
01.12.2004. Subsequently, the SLP filed against it was also dismissed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment in C.A. No. 6387 of 2004, dated
04.04.2005.
9.(a) Another Division Bench of this Court in Selvi R. Anbarasi Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Chief Engineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B., Chennai [MANU/TN/8585/2006 :
2006 (2) M.L.J. 200] held as follows:-
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar issue,
rejecting the compassionate ground appointment on the ground that the
application was submitted beyond three years and the same was rejected
earlier on the ground that the petitioner therein has not completed 18
years of age, was considered by this Court in W.P. No. 1584 of 2011 and
this Court held that the applications having been made within a period of
three years and the same having not been considered on the ground that
the petitioner therein was not 18 years of age at that time, the subsequent
application cannot be rejected on the ground that the application was
submitted within three years. The learned Judge directed the respondents
not to treat the second application as an application for compassionate
appointment, but it is to be treated as continuation of the application
originally submitted. The said judgment is reported in T. Meer Ismail Ali
Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through its Chairman, and others,
MANU/TN/0337/2004 : (2004) 3 C.T.C. 120. This Court, ultimately,
directed the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the
petitioner therein.
(b)In W.P. No. 21512 of 2003 one Indiraniammal challenged the rejection
of compassionate appointment on similar ground. The learned single
Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 4.8.2003 against which
the petitioner therein filed W.A. No. 3050 of 2003 and the said writ appeal
was allowed by the Division Bench (consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice
P. Sathasivam (as he then was) & S.K. Krishnan, J) by order dated
8.3.2005 following the earlier judgments as well as the Supreme Court
Judgment reported in MANU/SC/0400/2000 : (2000) 6 SCC 493 (Balbir
Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd). Against the said decision Civil
Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 was filed by the respondent Board herein which
was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 30.3.2010.
(c)Dismissal of another W.P. No. 775 of 2004 by order dated 29.1.2005 on
the ground of delay was considered by the Division Bench (F.M. Ibrahim
Kalifullah, J. (as he then was) & P. Murugesan, J) in W.A. (MD). No. 29
of 2006 and by order dated 27.6.2006 the Division Bench allowed the writ
appeal and directed to give compassionate appointment to the younger
son of the deceased Board employee, who died on 15.11.1996. The said
order of the Division Bench was also challenged by the Board in SLP (C)
No. 15534 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on
8.4.2009.
(d)Three writ petitions were disposed of by one of us (NPVJ) i.e., W.P.
Nos. 19914 of 2004, 32409 of 2004 and 10577 of 2005 by common order
dated 24.7.2006 wherein similar issue was considered. In respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
above three writ petitions, which were allowed, writ appeal was filed
against one writ petition in W.A. No. 1206 of 2006 while implementing the
order in respect of other two cases. The said writ appeal was allowed by
the Division Bench on 29.9.2006. The respondent in the writ appeal viz., J.
Karthick filed review application which was also rejected by the Division
Bench on 25.8.2008. Against the dismissal of the writ appeal as well as
rejection of review application, the said J. Karthick filed SLP (C) No.
2004-2005/2009 and on 23.2.2009 the SLPs were tagged along with Civil
Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 viz., Indiraniammal case. Subsequently the said
SLP was numbered as Civil Case Nos. 5068~5069 of 2009 which was
allowed on 30.3.2010 and the said order reads as follows:
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Appeals have
been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras
dated 29th September, 2006 and subsequent order dated 25.8.2008 passed
in the review application.
The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the
learned single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed
compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at
the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant
applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after
becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of
the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned single Judge.
No costs.
From the perusal of the above order it is evident that the order passed by
the Division Bench in writ appeal and in the review petition were set aside
and the order of the single Judge dated 29.9.2006 was restored.
(e)In W.P. No. 18575 of 2006 one of us (NPVJ) had an occasion to
consider similar issue and allowed the writ petition on 20.6.2006 by
following earlier orders. The said order was also challenged by the
respondent in W.A. No. 42 of 2007 and the Division Bench (D.
Murugesan, J & K. Venkataraman, J) dismissed the writ appeal on
2.7.2009. The Board filed SLP (C) No. 8305 of 2010 which was also
dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 6.7.2010. The said
candidate viz., P. Venkatesan was given compassionate appointment by
order dated 18.8.2010.
(f)Again similar matter was considered by one of us (NPVJ) in W.P. No.
29059 of 2003 and relief granted by order dated 7.7.2006, against which
also the Board filed W.A. No. 1652 of 2006. The said writ appeal was
dismissed by Division Bench (D. Murugesan, J. & S. Nagamuthu, J.) on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30.3.2009."
In this case, the petitioner-s father died on 07.01.2015. She attained majority on
21.09.2019. On 03.12.2019, she has made an application for compassionate
appointment.
7.The abovesaid decision makes it clear that the application submitted by
the minor of the deceased Government employee after attaining majority is
immaterial when the first application was made by eligible member of the family
within three years from the date of death of the Government employee. In this
case also, the mother of the petitioner has submitted application seeking
compassionate appointment within three years. Thus, as held in the abovesaid
decision, the application submitted by the respondent in the year 2019 has to be
treated as continuation of the application submitted by her mother in 2015 which
was well within three years time limit. The object of compassionate appointment
is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due
to untimely death of its sole breadwinner. In this case, the deceased died leaving
behind his wife and respondent / daughter as legal heirs. In 2016, the mother of
the petitioner also died and the respondent is stated to be under the care and
custody of her grandparents. Thus, the abovesaid facts also constitute penurious
circumstances of the family of the deceased. Thus, we find no infirmity in the
order passed by the Writ Court and therefore, we dismiss the Writ Appeal.
Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
7.In the present case, admittedly, the father of the appellant worked in the
respondent department and he died on 14.02.2012, while he was in service.
Within the period of limitation, the application seeking compassionate
appointment was made, initially by the appellant's mother in view of the fact
that the appellant was a minor at that time, and thereafter, by the appellant, in
continuance of the representation submitted by his mother. Subsequently,
taking note of the indigent circumstances of the appellant's family, a proposal
was sent to the Government by the authorities for granting compassionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointment, but it was not fructified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malaya
Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522], has held
that the authorities must consider and decide the applications for appointment
on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not
beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such applications.
It is also to be noted that the Government Orders issued earlier qua
compassionate appointment, underwent various changes subsequently. In the
said circumstances, applying the principles enunciated in the above judgment to
the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that the candidature of the
appellant has to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.
8.In such view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judge is
liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the
respondents are directed to consider the application of the appellant for
compassionate appointment, keep his name in the waiting list, and grant
appointment in any one of the eligible posts in the respondent Department, as
and when his turn comes up.
9.With the above directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
29.11.2023
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
gya
To
1.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
2.The District Collector
Office of District Collector
Vellore District, Vellore
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Vellore District, Vellore
4.The Tahsildar
Taluk Office
Pernampet, Vellore District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
