Madras High Court
G.Vinoth Kumar vs Director Of Medical And Rural Health ... on 2 January, 2023
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
W.P.No.19018 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.12.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P.No.19018 of 2013
G.Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Director of Medical and Rural Health Services
and Family Welfare,
DM Compound,
Teynampet, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services
and Family Welfare,
Tiruvannamalai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Block Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Karapattu,
Tiruvannamalai. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the relating order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in
Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 dated 20.03.2013 quash the same, further direct the
respondents 1 and 2 herein to issue appointment order to the petitioner.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 14
W.P.No.19018 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyathurai,
Government Advocate.
******
ORDER
Aggrieved against the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 dated 20.03.2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father late K.Ganesan, while working as Block Health Statistician at Karapattu Primary Health Centre, Tiruvannamalai District. died in harness on 17.02.1998, leaving behind the petitioner's mother, his two sisters along with his grandmother and the petitioner himself as his legal heirs.
3. According to the petitioner, his family does not own any immovable property or any other source of income. Similarly, there is no other earning member in his family, either in private employment or working in Government Service. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's family became impecunious and was not in a position to survive and meet the day to ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 day expenses from the meagre pension amount of Rs.4,800/- per month. In such circumstances, in the year 1999, the petitioner's mother, who is blind, had approached the third respondent, seeking for employment under compassionate ground but her claim was denied by the respondents stating that she was not fit for any job due to her blindness and she was also advised by the respondents that if any other qualified person in her family is available, they can make suitable application for seeking employment under compassionate ground.
4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was five years old and his sisters were not possessing basic educational qualification to apply for the compassionate appointment. Therefore, in the year 2013, the petitioner after attaining the age of majority, made an application on 05.02.2013 seeking for compassionate appointment. However, his claim was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner has not applied within 3 years from the date of his father's death, vide order dated 20.03.2013 in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013
5. Placing reliance on the order made in W.P.No.9528 of 2008 in the case of R.Sridevi vs. Labour and Employment Department reported in 2011 SCC Online Mad 1523, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the view taken in the above decision, wherein the claim of the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment, after a lapse of seven years from the date of death of the government servant, has been considered and appointment has also been granted. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“14. In view of the legal propositions laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied and therefore, the impugned orders dated 08.10.2007 and 09.12.2007 passed by respondents 1 and 2, respectively are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to any suitable post without reference to the objection raised in the impugned orders i.e., the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of death of her father, but taking into account the fact that the sudden death of her father has left his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and pass ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction.”
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the mother of the petitioner was blind and the petitioner was five years old at the time of the death of the government servant. Considering the indigent circumstances that was created unexpectedly by the sudden demise of the head of the family, the petitioner prayed to consider his request for compassionate appointment, thereby quashing the order of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 dated 20.03.2013 and allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Mr.A.M.Ayyathurai, learned Government Advocate submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, an application for appointment on compassionate grounds have to be submitted within three years from the date of death of the Government Servant. According to the learned Government Advocate, no such application was received from the legal heirs of the deceased K. Ganesan within three years from 17.02.1998. The petitioner herein, who is the son of the deceased, had submitted an application on 05.02.2013 to the third ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, nearly after 15 years from the date of death of his father. His claim has been rejected on the ground that the application was not submitted within the prescribed period of three years from the date of death of his father and also that the application seeking for compassionate appointment was made after 15 years from the date of death of his father.
8. The learned Government Advocate also drew the attention of this Court to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995, wherein it has been clearly stated that the application for appointment on compassionate ground should be made within three years from the date of death of the Government Servant. Subsequently, the Government in their Letter No.39924/Q1/95-1, Labour and Employment Department dated 11.10.1995 has also clarified that the time limit of three years period specified in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995 is applicable only to the dependants of the deceased Government servants those who died while in service on or after 26.06.1995. Here in the present case on hand, the petitioner's father died on 17.02.1998 and therefore, the above G.O. clearly curtails the prayer of the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves rejection and the respondents have rightly rejected the same. According to the learned Government Advocate, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is without any basis and the same deserves no consideration and is also liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court.
10. It is seen that the petitioner's mother had approached the respondents in the year 1999, i.e. after one year from the date of death of her husband on 17.02.1998, where she was advised by the respondents that her request for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as she had lack of vision and further advised that any other qualified person belonging to her family can apply for the same. Since the son of the deceased was only five years old and there were no other qualified person in the petitioner's family, the petitioner, after attaining the age of majority in the year 2013, made an application for compassionate appointment in the same year itself and therefore, there was no delay in making application for compassionate appointment. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013
11. In a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006, dated 30.03.2010 in the case of Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & another vs. Indiraniammal, wherein it has been held as follows:-
“the Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed compassionate appointment to the appellant. The appellant was a minor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of the appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the appellant after becoming major should have been granted compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge. No costs. "
12. Similarly in an earlier decision of this Court reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 438 in the case of A.Musthfa Iqbal Basha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Educational Department, Chennai and others, it has been held as follows:-
“ the objective of providing compassionate appointment is to tide over the sudden indigent circumstances unexpectedly created by the sudden ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 death of the Government Servant. As the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of his father and at the same time his mother was also not eligible for appointment, he could not submit any application for compassionate appointment. Instead, he, immediately after attaining majority, submitted an application to the respondents. Just because there is a delay in submitting the application for the said reason by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased Government servant has got over the indigent circumstances. It is seen from the records that the two sisters of the petitioner are married and the brother is living separately. Now, the persons left out in the family are the petitioner and his mother, who are without any job and in every need of employment. In the given situation, it is very difficult for them to get two square meals a day. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the family of the deceased government servant cannot be left in lurch” In the present case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner's mother and his sisters were not qualified for obtaining the appointment through compassionate ground, at the time of death of the petitioner's father.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013
13. In a similar circumstance, in the case of M.Uma vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB, Chennai, reported in (2010) 7 MLJ 644, wherein the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted the same within three years, this Court, taking into account the indigent circumstances of the family directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order. Also are cases in Mohanambal vs. The Director, Land & Survey Department and R.Prasath vs. The Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and others, wherein, this Court has held that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is not to be rejected on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of time and the application is to be considered on its own merits.
14. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates that a minor may make an application within the same period, on attaining the age of majority, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor. Thus, in view of Section 6, the petitioner was entitled to move application for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013
15. In view of the legal propositions laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the very purport of extending a helping hand to a destitute on the death of her husband by way of compassionate appointment would get defeated if such claims are turned down on such hyper-technical ground. It is seen that the petitioner's mother who was blind, had approached the respondents after the death of her husband and only due to the lack of vision, her request was rejected and this obviously, shows that steps were taken by the petitioner's mother diligently in pursuing her claim for compassionate appointment over the death of her husband right from the year 1999. In such circumstances, when the appellant being a widow and since she had no other source of livelihood, the respondents should have been much more sympathetic and practical in considering the claim of the petitioner's mother for compassionate appointment to her son based on the application dated 05.02.2013. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied, but the same has to be considered in sympathetic and practical way.
16. In the light of the above reasonings, the Writ Petition stands allowed ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 on the following terms:-
(i) The order of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.226/A1/2013 dated 20.03.2013 is quashed; and
(ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 05.02.2013 for compassionate appointment on merits and pass suitable orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
02.01.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order sts To:
1. Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Family Welfare, DM Compound, Teynampet, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Director of Medical and Health Services and Family Welfare, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Block Medical Officer, ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 Primary Health Centre, Karapattu, Tiruvannamalai.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 14 W.P.No.19018 of 2013 J.NISHA BANU, J.
sts Order made in W.P.No.19018 of 2013 Dated:
02.01.2023 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 14