S.Sevugamoorthi vs The Director
2025 Latest Caselaw 6441 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6441 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2025

Madras High Court

S.Sevugamoorthi vs The Director on 25 April, 2025

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                                                                     W.P.(MD)No.5677 of 2025

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 25.04.2025

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                         W.P.(MD)No.5677 of 2025
                                      and W.M.P(MD).No.4136 of 2025

                S.Sevugamoorthi                                                            ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                1.The Director,
                  Municipal Administration,
                  No.75, Urban Administrative Building,
                  Santhome High Road, M.R.C.Nagar,
                  Raja Annamalaipuram,
                  Chennai 600 028.

                2.The Commissioner,
                  Karaikudi Corporation,
                  Sivagangai District.                               ... Respondents


                PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records
                pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide his
                proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 2208/2021/H2 dated 20.02.2025 and quash the same
                and consequently direct the respondents to provide an appointment to the
                petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate ground.


                                   For Petitioner           : Mr.S.Balaji



                1/7



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 06:07:10 pm )
                                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.5677 of 2025

                                       For Respondents         : Mr.D.Sachikumar (for R1)
                                                                 Additional Government Pleader

                                                                  Mr.EP.Venkateshwar
                                                                  Standing Counsel (for R2)


                                                     ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional

Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and learned Standing

Counsel for the second respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the second

respondent on 20.02.2025, wherein the request of the petitioner, who is being

the legal heir of the deceased employee, for providing compassionate

appointment in the respondents department has been rejected on the ground that

the petitioner has failed to submit application within three years from the date of

death of his father.

3. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, namely,

M.Chokkan, who is working as Sanitary Worker in the second respondent

Corporation, died in harness on 21.11.2006. Before the demise of his father, his

mother passed away on 02.07.1999. The petitioner being the minor at the time

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 06:07:10 pm )

of death of his father, he did not approach the respondent at that time. After

completion of 18 years i.e., on 06.07.2019, he submitted an application to the

second respondent along with all necessary documents requesting to provide

any suitable post in the second respondent Corporation. The said representation

was rejected vide impugned order on the ground that it is submitted beyond

three years time period. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

4. The issue in the present writ petition has already been dealt with by

this Court and it is clearly covered by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court in P.Kasthuri Vs., Chief Engineer (Personnel) and another in

W.A(MD).No.792 of 2011 dated 03.12.2015, wherein this Court directed the

respondents therein to make compassionate appointment to the appellant

therein, considering the application submitted within the stipulated time by the

mother of the appellant. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are

extracted hereunder:

“7. One more aspect which has to be considered de hors of the Rules is the pathetic condition of the appellant and other children of late Palanivel. After the death of the said Palanivel in 1994, his wife also passed away on 04.08.1996 after applying for compassionate appointment. In fact, the appellant and others have become orphans and they are looked after by their maternal uncle. When such is the pitiable condition, the respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 06:07:10 pm )

should have considered the appellant's application for compassionate appointment with compassion.

8. The learned Single Judge should also have taken into consideration the said aspect. The learned Single Judge, in fact, did not take into consideration the application made by the appellant's mother on 11.01.1996 for compassionate appointment, which was in time. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The respondents are directed to make the compassionate appointment of the appellant on or before 01.04.2016, failing which the respondents shall appear before this Court on 02.04.2016.”

4.1 In addition, in S.Velraj vs. The Superintendent Engineer and

another in W.A.(MD).No.1400 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court vide its

judgment dated 16.12.2015 held that three years limitation cannot be applied in

strait-jacket formula and each and every case has to be approached differently,

based on the facts. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

“3. It is admitted fact that the employee died on 19.03.1992, leaving behind four children and at that time, the appellant is the eldest son, aged about 12 years. If he applied for appointment on compassionate ground at that time, when he was 12 years, his application would have been rejected on the ground that he was a minor and, therefore, on attaining majority, the appellant rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground. However, taking into consideration the plight of the family and also the young age of the mother and other children, it is a case where appointment on compassionate ground has to be given. Three years limitation cannot be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 06:07:10 pm )

applied in strait-jacket formula and each and every case has to be approached differently, based on the facts. Since the eldest son of the family has rightly applied for appointment on compassionate ground, on attaining majority, the respondents have to consider the appellant's application for appointment on compassionate ground. ”

5. The judgment stated supra, are squarely applicable to the present case.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:

(i) The impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.

2208/2021/H2, dated 20.02.2025 is hereby quashed.

(ii) The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in any suitable

post within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

25.04.2025

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Rmk

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 06:07:10 pm )

To:

1.The Director, Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, M.R.C.Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.