Madras High Court

S.Vaideeswaran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 February, 2025

Author: C.V.Karthikeyan

Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No. 2317 of 2024

S.Vaideeswaran ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.

2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Panagal Building
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.

3. The Commissioner
Panchayat Union, Veerapandi
Salem.

4. The Personal Assistant to District Collector,
Collectorate Office (Development Division)
Salem District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records of the fourth respondent bearing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2

Na.Ka.No.6934/2023/Ni3 dated 19.06.2023 and quash the same and
further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate grounds.

***
For Petitioner :: Ms. T.Hemalatha

For RR 1, 2 & 4 :: Mr. V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader

For 3rd Respondent :: No appearance

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified

Mandamus seeking records relating to an order of the fourth

respondent dated 19.06.2023 in Na.Ka.No. 6934/2023/Ni3 and quash

the same.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had

been stated that the father of the writ petitioner, A.Sampath was

working as Office Assistant at Veerapandi Panchayat Union, Rural

Development Department, Salem and died while in service on

09.08.2018. On that date, the petitioner was a minor and was

studying in 8th standard. On 01.03.2021 when the petitioner had

completed his 10th standard, his mother had given a representation

seeking appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

compassionate grounds. The entire issue would have come to a close

had the respondents considered that particular representation of the

mother of the petitioner. However, that representation by the mother

of the petitioner kept circulating around the office of the respondents,

and was finally forwarded to the District Collector/the fourth

respondent. On 21.06.2021, the fourth respondent rejected the claim

on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age.

3. The fourth respondent cannot place that fact to the

disadvantage of the petitioner or of the mother of the petitioner since

it cannot be expected that children of a public servant would always

cross the age of 18 years and be eligible to be considered for any

suitable post and would never been less than 18 years on the date

when the father or mother dies. That reasoning cannot withstand the

scrutiny of this Court.

4. Thereafter, the third respondent, however issued a

communication on 25.03.2022 to the mother of the petitioner asking

her to furnish certain documents. A further representation was made

on 12.06.2023 enclosing all the documents and requesting

employment on compassionate basis. The impugned order was passed

on 19.06.2023 rejecting the claim by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18, Labour and Employment Department dated 23.01.2020 and

G.O.Ms.No. 33 Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department

dated 08.03.2023. Both those aforementioned Government Orders

stipulate that an application seeking employment on compassionate

basis should be filed within a period of three years from the date of

death of the public servant.

5. In the counter affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitioner,

it had been contended that the petitioner herein had applied seeking

to be appointed on compassionate grounds on 01.03.2013. It had

been further contended that the petitioner was less than the age of 18

years and after he completed the age of 18 years, he had made an

application on 12.06.2023 which was three years later than, the date

of death of his father.

6. The facts are as follows:-

The father of the petitioner, who was working as Office

Assistant at Veerapandi Panchayat Union, Rural Development

Department, Salem, died while in service on 09.08.2018. If

employment on compassionate basis is to be sought by any surviving

member of the family, such application should be filed within three

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

years from the date of death. The mother of the petitioner had

applied on 01.03.2021 seeking employment on behalf of the petitioner

herein. The petitioner was less than age of 18 years. After he had

completed 18 years of age, he again applied on 12.06.2023.

Comparison of the dates show that the mother had applied within

three years from the date of death of her husband and the petitioner

had applied within three years from the date of that particular

application of the mother and within three years from the attaining

the age of majority. The reasoning of the respondents therefore has

to be rejected by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection also

placed reliance on the consistent stand taken by this Court in this

regard, namely, that if the children are aged less than 18 years, then

the mother can apply and must apply within a period of three years

and the child for whom such employment sought should apply within

three years from the date of attaining the age of majority. This

position has been stated in the Judgment of a Division Bench reported

in MANU TN/0635/2009 [TNEB and another Vs. S.Suder]. The

reasoning of th Division Bench is as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

“'4. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in The Chief Engineer/Personnel, T.N.E.B., & another Vs. S.Suder reported in MANU/TN/0635/2009 was held as follows: "4.In the judgment reported in 2001 Writ L.R.601 in the case of "Ramadoss.D. Vs. The Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B.", this Court (D.Murugesan,J) directed the consideration of the application made within a period of three years after attaining the majority by placing reliance on the very same Circular in B.P.No.46, dated 13.10.1995.

5.Subsequently, in the judgment reported in 2002(4) L.L.N.1132, (D.Murugesan,J.), in the case of "P.Ravi V.Chief Engineer (P), T.N.E.B.", also, the very same Circular was relied upon and the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was directed to be considered. 6.Justice P.D.Dinakaran, has also taken the very same view by following the very same Circular dated 13.10.1995, in W.P.No.19673 of 2003, in the order dated 23.09.2003, in the case of "J.Jayakaran Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Theni Electricity Distribution Circle, Theni" and the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was directed to be considered.

7.Justice K.Govindarajan has also taken the same view in Writ Petition No. 13099 of 2003, order dated 30.10.2003, in the case of "G.Muthamilselvan V. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chief Engineer (Personnel) and Anr." 8.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla has also taken the same view in the decision reported in 2004(3) CTC 120, (2004) MLJ 238 in the case of "Meer Ismail Ali.T. V. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board". We are told that the order in the said case of "Meer Ismail Ali" was confirmed in the Writ Appeal by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4008 of 2004, by judgment dated 1.12.2004 and as against the said judgment dated 1.12.2004, the Special Leave Petition in Civil Appeal No.6387 of 2005, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, by judgment dated 4.4.2005."”

8. It is thus seen that the impugned order suffers owing to non

appreciation of a fundamental fact that the mother of the petitioner

had actually applied on 01.03.2021 seeking employment on behalf of

the petitioner herein and the petitioner after he had attained the age

of majority had again applied on 12.06.2023. The impugned order is

set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Office of the District

Collector for fresh consideration of the application filed by the

petitioner herein. The respondents may examine all surrounding

circumstances and pass appropriate orders within a period of three

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. The Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected