Madras High Court
R.Beninal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2019
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.(MD)No.19277 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15601 and 15602 of 2017
R.Beninal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Commissioner,
Rajapalayam Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records on the file of the fourth respondent in connection with the
impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.A5/1734/2015 dated
14.03.2016 and quash the same as arbitrary and consequently direct
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate
appointment in any suitable post based on her educational qualification
within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.M.Rajarajan
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner, Rajapalayam Panchayat / fourth respondent, dated 14.03.2016 in and by which, the request of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of delay.
2.Heard Mr.K.Gurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
3.The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit. The reasons assigned in the impugned order are reiterated in the counter affidavit. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.It is true that a period of three years has been prescribed to enable the persons claiming compassionate appointment to make applications. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 2009. Immediately, thereafter she submitted her application along with required certificates namely, the legal heirship certificate, widow certificate and other certificates required for consideration of the application for compassionate appointment.
5.Admittedly, there was a dispute regarding the status of the petitioner. One Margaret filed a suit claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the husband of the petitioner and the said suit was pending till September, 2011. Eventually, the suit came to be dismissed on 07.09.2011. Thereafter, the authorities examined the request of the petitioner and she was favoured with the legal heirship certificate and widow certificate only during the year 2015. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner had filed the present application seeking compassionate appointment.
6.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the similar case in W.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2016 and has held that in certain circumstances the period of three years fixed for filing applications http://www.judis.nic.in 4 seeking compassionate appointment can be extended. In doing so the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:-
“4.It is true that the scheme for compassionate appointment contemplated lodging of application within three years from the date of demise of the employee in question. But in the present case, it is seen that immediately after the death of her husband, the writ petitioner was locked in a litigation. The Education Department was also made a party to the suit proceedings. The benefits payable on account of the death of the writ petitioner's husband was also made an item in the suit schedule. On account of the pendency of the suit, the writ petitioner could not even obtain the basic eligibility certificates required from the concerned authorities. Without those certificates she could not have even applied in the necessary format. Therefore, there has been a slight delay in lodging of application. It is not as if the application is highly belated. The death of the writ petitioner's husband was on 12 August 2011. The Application had been filed on 01 April 2015. As already pointed out, the writ petitioner / appellant is a widow and she has a daughter to support.
5.Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. We therefore, set aside the order made in the writ petition and allow this writ appeal and quash the order dated 18 June 2015 passed by the respondent herein in Na.Ka.
2437/A1/2015 and remit to the file of the respondent. The http://www.judis.nic.in 5 respondent is directed to consider the case afresh and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application dated 01 April 2015, seeking compassionate appointment. The respondent shall complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
7.In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment if she is otherwise entitled within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ta
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairy and Fisheries, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
ta W.P.(MD)No.19277 of 2017 10.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in