Madras High Court
The District Collector vs A.Baby ... Writ on 8 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 1008
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, P.Rajamanickam
W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1288 of 2020
1. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2. The Divisional Engineer (NH),
Divisional Engineer Office,
Madurai. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
A.Baby ... Writ
Petitioner / Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of
this Court made in W.P.(MD) No.4328 of 2013 dated 04.04.2017.
For Appellants : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.A.Balaji
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The official respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants and aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.09.2015, passed in W.P.(MD).No. 4328 of 2013, in and by which, the impugned order rejecting the request for compassionate ground came to be quashed with a positive direction directing the appellants to offer employment to the third son of the respondent on compassionate grounds.
2. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would submit that admittedly, after the demise of the respondent's husband on 02.03.1991, an offer was made to the writ petitioner herself in the form of compassionate appointment and she was not inclined to accept the offer and even as per the averments, the petitioner's first two sons have completed 8th standard and from them no application for compassionate appointment was made and the petitioner had waited nearly for a period of 14 years before making an application in the form of representation dated 13.09.2005, seeking compassionate appointment in respect of her third son namely A.Balaji, who had completed 12th standard on 18.05.2005. http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020
3. The primordial submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the said request was made nearly after 14 years from the date of demise of the respondent's husband and in the interregnum period, the entire family was able to survive and that apart, as per the relevant Government orders, application for compassionate appointment is to be made within three years from the date of demise of the breadwinner and admittedly, it has not been done.
4. It is further submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the impugned order came to be passed purely overlooking the well settled position of law in the form of pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court with regard to the appointment on compassionate ground and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Inspector General of Police v. P.Marimuthu [(2015) 6 CTC 125].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner is semi-illeterate hailing from rural back ground as well as belonging to poor economic back ground and in order to look after her family, she declined the offer of appointment on compassionate http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020 ground, which was made immediately after the demise of her husband and she was under the impression that since her first two sons have studied 8th standard, they may not get good employment opportunity under the service category, had waited for her third son for complete 12th standard, thereafter, made a request for appointment on compassionate ground and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay cannot be taken as a ground for denying employment on compassionate grounds and prays for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
6. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.
7. The facts of the case would disclose that the husband of the petitioner was employed as a Watchman and died in harness on 02.03.1991 and as per paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, an offer of appointment on compassionate ground was made to her and it appears that she had declined the same due to her family circumstances. Admittedly, the first two sons of the petitioner had completed 8th standard and at the relevant point of time, 8th standard was the minimum qualification to enter into Tamil Nadu Basic Services. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, she did not submit any application seeking compassionate appointment for either http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020 herself or her first two sons. However, she waited till 18.05.2005 for completion of 12th standard course by her third son A.Balaji and thereafter, submitted the application dated 13.09.2005, for compassionate appointment. The second respondent vide impugned order dated 07.07.2009 have taken into consideration the long delay in making request for compassionate appointment has rejected the request.
8. It is also relevant to quote the following paragraphs in The Inspector General of Police v. P.Marimuthu [(2015) 6 CTC 125]:-
"38. Needless to state that for entry into any service in the State, the minimum age is 18 years, and no minor can be appointed to any service. Therefore, he cannot make any application for appointment to any post in service and no post can be kept vacant for him, till he attains majority. Posts which fall vacant have to be filled up as per the recruitment rules. Employment assistance on compassionate appointment, is only a concession, extended to an eligible member of the family, to apply for a suitable post, in the service, in which, the employee/Government servant died in harness and it is not a right, which can be exercised by a minor on attainment of majority.
39. Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that continuation of penury or indigent circumstances of the family, alone is not the factor to be considered by the department, while examining the request of an applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. Reading of the Government orders shows http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020 that scheme can be extended only to eligible member of the family and not to an ineligible person. Scheme has not been framed to provide employment assistance as and when the son or daughter of the deceased employee attains majority. Under the scheme, the department is not obligated to keep any post vacant, till the applicant attains majority or to consider his candidature on attaining majority. Scheme only enables those who are eligible and satisfy all the eligibility criteria including age, within three years from the date of death.
40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468."
9. In the light of the factual situation coupled with the legal position enunciated in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition in quashing the order of rejection passed by the second respondent with the consequential direction to give appointment on compassionate ground to the third son of the respondent/Writ Petitioner is unsustainable.
10. In the result, Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition is set aside. Consequentially, the Writ Petition is http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020 dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :No [M.S.N.,J.] [P.R.M.,J.]
Internet :Yes 08.07.2020
pkn/sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To
1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
2. The Divisional Engineer (NH), Divisional Engineer Office, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
AND P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.
sj W.A.(MD)No.187 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1288 of 2020 08.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8