Madras High Court
S.Asmath Hasina Fathima vs / on 3 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.13076 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.13076 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.10122 of 2017
S.Asmath Hasina Fathima ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Environment & Forest Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Forest Officer,
O/o.The District Forest Office,
Theni Division,
KRR Nagar, Housing Board Colony,
Theni, Theni District.
3.The Wildlife Warden,
O/o. The Wildlife Warden Office,
Megamalai Forest Division,
Theni, Theni District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.13076 of 2017
to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No. 4658/2014 pa2 dated 11.06.2014 and the consequential order
passed by the 3rd respondent Na.Ka.No. 4215/2015/pa dated 29.07.2015
and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent in O.Mu.No.
7973/2016/ pa 1 dated 30.09.2016 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any
one of the post commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner on
compassionate ground within the period that may be stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohammed Suhail
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.G.Suriya Ananth
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the
second respondent dated 11.06.2014 and the consequential order passed
by the third respondent dated 29.07.2015 as well as the consequential
order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the third respondent rejecting the
petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment on the ground that
the said application was not filed within a period of three years from the
date of death of the petitioner’s father.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent
reiterating the contents of the impugned orders and reiterating that the
petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
3. The following facts are undisputed:-
(a) The petitioner’s father, namely, M.S.S.Hameed was working
as Forester in Theni Division and he died on 12.08.2000, while he was in
service;
(b) At the time of death of the petitioner’s father, namely,
M.S.S.Hameed, the petitioner, who is his daughter was aged about 4 ½
years;
(c) M.S.S.Hameed’s wife, who is the petitioner’s mother
submitted a representation dated 29.09.2000 with the respondents
seeking for compassionate appointment for the petitioner, as she was not
eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds;
(d) The petitioner attained the age of 18 years on 06.03.2014. The
petitioner submitted a representation on 05.06.2014 immediately after
attaining majority seeking appointment on compassionate grounds;
(e) Under the impugned order, the second respondent, by his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings dated 11.06.2014 has rejected the petitioner’s request for
compassionate appointment on the ground that at the time of submitting
the application on 29.09.2000, the petitioner was not qualified.
4. Admittedly, the request for compassionate appointment was
made by the petitioner’s mother as early as on 29.09.2000 itself and on
that date, the petitioner, who is her daughter was aged about 4 ½ years.
Admittedly, the petitioner attained majority only on 06.03.2014.
5. Infact, as seen from the representation of the petitioner’s mother
dated 29.09.2000, she has sought for compassionate appointment only
for the petitioner and she has also stated that she is not eligible to be
appointed on compassionate basis. However, under the impugned order
dated 11.06.2014 passed by the second respondent, the request of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the
ground that at the time of submitting the application on 29.09.2000 by
the petitioner’s mother seeking for compassionate appointment, the
petitioner was not qualified.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. A purposeful interpretation will have to be given with regard to
the time limit prescribed for seeking compassionate appointment. It is
impossible for the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate basis on
the date when the petitioner’s mother submitted a representation dated
29.09.2000 seeking for compassionate appointment for the petitioner, as
admittedly on that date, the petitioner was aged only about 4 ½ years.
7. The law has now been well settled by various decisions
rendered by this Court including the decision rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court, wherein it has been categorically held that the
period of three years that has been provided under the Circular and the
Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment
Department, dated 23.01.2000 has to be given a meaningful
interpretation and the period of three years must be reckoned from the
date on which the person becomes a major.
8. The following authorities reiterate the aforementioned
proposition:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(a) The Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
29.11.2023 rendered in WA.No.2594 of 2023 in the case of P.Iyappan vs.
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue
Administration, Chennai and Others;
(b) The Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
20.09.2022 rendered in WA(MD)No.1063 of 2022 in the case of the
Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram vs. H.Sridevagi;
(c) The decision of the Single Judge of this Court dated
06.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.24981 of 2023 in the case of P.Shruthi vs.
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai and Others.
9. By total non-application of mind to the well settled law and
despite the fact that the petitioner had attained majority only on
06.03.2014, the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s request
seeking for compassionate appointment. Necessarily the impugned orders
will have to be quashed and the writ petition will have to be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 11.06.2014 passed by
the second respondent and the consequential orders dated 29.07.2015 and
30.09.2016 passed by the third respondent are hereby quashed and this
writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to re-
consider the petitioner’s application seeking for compassionate
appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds without quoting
the three years period and the said exercise shall be completed by the
second and third respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
TO:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Environment & Forest Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The District Forest Officer,
O/o.The District Forest Office,
Theni Division,
KRR Nagar, Housing Board Colony,
Theni, Theni District.
3.The Wildlife Warden,
O/o. The Wildlife Warden Office,
Megamalai Forest Division,
Theni, Theni District.
Order made in
Dated:
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
