Madras High Court
V.Ramkumar vs The Regional Joint Registrar Of on 27 September, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
V.Ramkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
District Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar Region,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
O/o. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Srivilliputtur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.SP.SPL.78, Enjar Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,
Represented by its President Enjar. ... 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, dated 30.11.2022 passed by the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka.10092/2022/Tho.Ve.Sa and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on
compassionate grounds for the post of Salesmen or any other eligible post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithviraj
For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Thambidurai
Government Advocate
For R3 : No representation
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order, dated 30.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.
10092/2022/Tho.Ve.Sa and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate
grounds for the post of Salesmen or any other eligible post.
2. The petitioner's father one Veerasingam was appointed in the 3rd
respondent Society on 25.01.1997 as a Packer. While in service, he passed
away on 02.08.2020 and he was survived by the petitioner, his mother, grand
mother and 3 brothers. The petitioner is a B.E Mechanical Engineer. He made
an application to the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 02.09.2022 seeking
appointment on compassionate ground in the 3rd respondent society. Pursuant to
the petitioner's application, the 3rd respondent agreed to appoint him in
compassionate ground and passed a resolution to this effect on 17.09.2022 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
forwarded the said resolution along with the representation of the petitioner to
the 2nd respondent for necessary action. However, the 3rd respondent issued
impugned order of rejection of the petitioner's representation on 30.11.2022.
The ground of rejection is that the petitioner father's service was not
regularized even at the time of his lifetime. Challenging the same, this writ
petition came to be filed.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter and the learned Government
Advocate submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on
compassionate ground. The Government of Tamil Nadu has issued guidelines
for appointment on compassionate ground vide G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020. In terms of the mandates of
the said Government Order, it is not possible to accommodate the legal heir of
an employee, whose service was not regularized during his lifetime and provide
him with employment. Hence, he pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
5. However, this matter is no more res integra. I have dealth with a
similar case in W.P(MD)No.16364 of 2023, dated 08.08.2023 and passed a
favourable orders to the petitioner therein and the relevant portion of which is
extracted as follows:
5.However, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.558 of 2009, dated
09.11.2009 (The Special Officer Vs. The Deputy Registrar and
others), in a similar case, wherein this Court gave a favourable
verdict to the petitioner. The relevant portion of which is
extracted as follows:-
“6.As far as the first contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant is concerned, it is true that there is no scheme
in the appellant society for providing compassionate
appointments. Nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that such
appointments are being made in deserving cases. Therefore,
merely because there is no scheme available, the request for
compassionate appointment cannot be denied. As far as the
impugned order in the writ petition rejecting the request for
compassionate appointment is concerned, the Society has
rejected the request wholly on the ground that the deceased
husband of the first respondent was not regularized.In our
opinion, having regard to the fact that the deceased
employee had put in 15 years of service and in the absence
of any scheme stipulating conditions as to consideration of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
compassionate appointment to the dependants of a regular
employee, whether such employee has been made permanent
or yet to be made permanent would be highly too technical
to reject the application for appointment on compassionate
ground. That apart, factually the name of the deceased
employee was recommended by the Special Officer of the
society in his proceedings dated 29.03.1996 for
regularization along with similarly placed persons.
However, before such recommendation was given effect to,
unfortunately, the employee died on 15.11.1996. From the
records it is also seen that within a period of 14 days, ie., on
29.11.1996, the all other persons numbering 14 and whose
names were also recommended along with the deceased
employee were regularized. The deceased employee could
not be regularized as by that time he was not alive. Had
been alive, he would have also also been regularized in
service. In view of that, the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the deceased was not regularized and
therefore, the first respondent cannot seek for compassionate
appointment cannot be accepted.”
6.Following the same, the learned Single Judge of this
Court in W.P(MD)No.1524 of 2020, dated 04.02.2020
(P.Pandeeswaran Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Society and
others) has permitted compassionate appointment for the legal
heirs of the temporary employee. The relevant portion of which is
extracted as follows:-
“7.It is also not disputed by the respondents that the
services of the similarly placed employees, who had rendered
services along with the petitioner's father, have now been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
regularized. This goes without saying that, had the petitioner's
father been alive during that relevant point of time when the
services of the similarly placed employees were regularized, the
services of the petitioner's father also would have been
regularized. The unfortunate and untimely death of the
petitioner's father during his services, cannot now be cited as a
reason that his services were not regularized and therefore,
deprived the petitioner to the benefit of on compassionate
appointment.
7.In another case in M.Venkatesh Vs. the Principal
Secretary to Government reported in (2021) 2 MLJ 282, the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a similar case, has held
as follows:-
“7. The issue, similar to the present one, has been decided
by this Court in various cases and this Court has held that if an
employee was qualified for regularization as on the date of his
death, then the claim of his legal heirs cannot be rejected. In the
present case also, the appellant's father was qualified for
regularization as on the date of his death since he had worked for
more than 28 years. Therefore, the claim of the appellant cannot
be rejected.”
8.This Court is fully in consonance with all the verdicts
passed by this Court in the order/Judgment mentioned supra. This
is a case where the petitioner's father, who was appointed as
attender at the first instance, from which post, he was promoted as
a Clerk, who remained in the service of the second respondent
Society from 19.02.1988 to 17.06.2021 without regularization ie.,
for a period of 33 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
9.This Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.6425 of
2021 etc batch, dated 12.03.2021 (G.Thamaraiselvan Vs. The
Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) and others), has
given a direction to the Government to extend the benefit of
regularization to all the persons who are similarly placed even
though they have not knocked at the doors of the Court.
6. In the line of the said judgment, observing that the petitioner's father
been alive, he would have been automatically regularized in service. This Court
observes that it is not legally correct for the respondents to reject the
application made by the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate
ground. In view of the same, this Court quash the impugned order, dated
30.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently, direct the
respondents to grant an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground
within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands allowed.
No costs.
27.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
To
1.The Regional Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
District Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar Region,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
O/o. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Srivilliputtur,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
gbg
W.P.(MD).No.29233 of 2022
27.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
