Madras High Court
M. Swetha vs The District Collector on 6 November, 2024
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P. No. 30954 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P. No. 30954 of 2018
and
W.M.P. No. 36093 of 2018
M. Swetha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
(HOFF), Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Forest Officer,
Vellore Division,
Vellore, Vellore District.
4.The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvannamalai North Division,
C.C. Road, Pakmarpettai,
Sengunam Post, Polur – 606 803,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance
of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the fourth
respondent in Na.Ka.3145/2018/M2 dated 30.06.2018 and quash the same and direct
the fourth respondent to provide employment to the petitioner under compassionate
grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P. No. 30954 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Balachandran
For Respondents : Mr. S. Rajesh,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari, to to call for the
records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.3145/2018/M2
dated 30.06.2018 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to provide
employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds.
2. The facts of the case are that,
one G.Moorthi, Forester died on 12.06.2012 while he was in service at
Natanoor Forest Region, North Forest Region, Tiruvannamalai. His daughter Swetha
who is the petitioner herein has requested for compassionate appointment on
23.09.2013. At that time, she was studying SSLC, she was born on 31.07.1999 and
aged about 14 years at the time of submitting application for compassionate
appointment. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the fourth respondent
vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3145/2018/M2 dated 30.06.2018. The said
proceedings are impugned in the present writ petition.
2.1 The reasons stated in the impugned order to reject the claim of the
petitioner is that, as per G.O.No.96, Labour and Employment Exchange, dated
18.06.2012, the legal heir of the deceased government servant is eligible for
compassionate appointment only those who have fully completed 18 years and that
too the government servant must have died after 23.08.2005. It is further stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petition has been received after three years of the death of the petitioner's father.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, infact the mother of
the petitioner has submitted application within a period of three years from the date
of the death of the father of the petitioner, as at that time, the petitioner was not a
major. Subsequently, the petitioner has become a major, she submitted an application
immediately within three years of attaining the age of majority. Learned counsel
further contends that the respondents failed to take into consideration of the aim and
object for providing compassionate appointment in proper perspective and with
erroneous reasons, the application of the petitioner was rejected and accordingly
sought to set aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petition.
4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the judgment dated 01.04.2024 of Division Bench of this Court and submits that
the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered in the said judgment.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submit that,
admittedly at the time of making the application seeking compassionate appointment
to the petitioner, she was only 14 years and therefore, at the time when she attained
majority, three years period was over from the date of the death of the father of the
petitioner. Therefore, compassionate appointment could not be considered,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application is made beyond three years period. Therefore, by following the G.O.No.
155, Labour and Employment Department dated 10.12.2014, the claim of the
petitioner was considered and rejected. Learned counsel further contends that the
order of rejection which was impugned in this writ petition ought not to have
interfered and he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material
available on record.
7. The aim and object of providing compassionate appointment is to give
immediate support to the family who lost their breadwinner who died over the sudden
crises. For effective implementation of the compassionate appointment scheme, the
State Government issued several instructions and order time to time. In several cases,
it came to the notice of the Court that the respondents are maintaining the seniority
list, district wise to provide compassionate appointment to the eligible legal heirs of
the deceased employees who died in harness. In most of the cases, the State
Government is taking more than 10 to 15 years to provide compassionate
appointment by following the seniority list maintained by them.
8. Under these factual position, the ground raised by the respondents in the
impugned order that the petitioner submitted her application for compassionate
appointment after three years of the death of the petitioner's father is, untenable and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unsustainable. As and when the State Government is not in a position to provide
compassionate appointment immediately after demise of the breadwinner of the
family or at a reasonable time, they are not suppose to contend that the petition
submitted after three years by the petitioner and as such, she is not entitled for
consideration. The second reason stated in the impugned order for rejection of the
claim of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is aged 14 years at the time of submission
of the application. On this aspect, this Court need not discuss further about the
entitlement of the petitioner for her claim in the light of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 479 of 2024.
9. While dealing with a writ petition, wherein a minor who has completed only
15 years and 6 months, approached this Court claiming compassionate appointment,
and her claim was rejected by the respondents therein, learned Single Judge of this
Court by order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.(MD) No. 27247 of 2023 has allowed the
said writ petition accepting the contention of the petitioner therein. Aggrieved by the
order of the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, the respondents therein
have preferred an appeal in W.A.(MD) No.479 of 2024. After consideration of the
contentions of both parties and looking into the relevant Rules applicable for
compassionate appointment, the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench,
holding that the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the respondents to
consider the application for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioners therein is flawless and the same is to be sustained. The relevant
paragraphs in the said judgment of the Division Bench are extracted herein under: -
“9.However, practically, in most of the cases hitherto the
position was that, when such an employee dies, the son or daughter
or the dependants other than the spouse would be minor. Therefore,
it will take some years to reach the majority within which three
years period from the date of death of the employee would be over.
Therefore, beyond three years period even though the dependant or
legal heirs would become eligible to seek for compassionate
appointment based on the educational qualification they acquired,
those cases would not be considered by citing three years period
that was prevailing hitherto.
10.However, these difficulties having been considered and
realized by the State Government, they have come forward to issue
the said Rule with effect from 08.03.2023.
11.Rule 6 of the said Rule reads thus:
'6.Age limit.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in these rules governing the post for which
appointment on compassionate grounds is to be made, on
the date of application for appointment.
(a) the spouse of the deceased or
medically invalidated Government servant or the
parent of the deceased Government servant, must
have completed fifty years of age; and
(b) the son, daughter, brother or sister of
the deceased or medically invalidated
Government servant must not have completed
forty years of age.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rules governing the post for which appointment on
compassionate grounds is to be made, there shall be no
minimum age limit for the applicant on the date of
application for appointment. Provided that
appointment shall not be provided unless the applicant
completes eighteen years of age.'
12.In Rule 6 under the heading age limit, the maximum age
has been prescribed, whereas insofar as the minimum age is
concerned, the Rule making authority has consciously made sub-
Rule (2) of Rule (6), where they have stated that there shall be no
minimum age limit for the applicant on the date of application for
appointment, provided that, appointment shall not be provided
unless the applicant completes eighteen years of age.
13.Therefore, it is not mandatory that at the time of making
the application seeking compassionate appointment, the applicant
or for whom such an application has been made seeking
compassionate appointment to have a minimum years of age, that
means on behalf of a minor also the application can be made,
however, such application even if it is considered, the appointment
can be given to the dependant or legal heir only after he or she
attains majority.
14.Therefore, the intention of the Rule making authority is
clear, unambiguous and explicit to state that under no
circumstances compassionate appointment should be denied to a
family which is in penurious circumstances where for want of
attaining the majority of the legal heir or dependant of the
deceased employees family, if compassionate appointment could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not be given immediately, the employer can consider such
application and grant the same or extend the benefit of
compassionate appointment to such a dependant or legal heir of the
deceased employee of the family on his attaining the majority.”
10. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as stated supra, is
squarely applicable to the present case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the order impugned in this writ petition is illegal, unjust and contrary to
the aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme and accordingly, it is
liable to be quashed.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following
direction:-
i) The order impugned in this writ petition in
Na.Ka.3145/2018/M2 dated 30.06.2018 is hereby quashed.
ii) The respondents are directed to provide employment to
the petitioner on compassionate ground, within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
06.11.2024
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
AT
To
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
(HOFF), Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Forest Officer,
Vellore Division,
Vellore, Vellore District.
4.The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvannamalai North Division,
C.C. Road, Pakmarpettai,
Sengunam Post, Polur – 606 803,
Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
AT
W.P. No. 30954 of 2018 and
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
