Madras High Court
R.Mohan Kumar vs The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies on 27 July, 2022
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.19417 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.19417 of 2022
R.Mohan Kumar .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
N.V.Natarajan Maaligai,
No.170, EVR Periyar High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
2.The Joint Registrar,
O/o. The Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Villupuram, Tamil Nadu.
3.The Deputy Registrar,
O/o. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Public Distribution Scheme,
Villupuram Puducherry Road,
Villupuram 605 602. ..Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.151/2020 Po.Vi.Thi.-1
dated 19.02.2021, quashing the same and consequently, directing the
third respondent herein to appoint the petitioner in the third
respondent office or any other office on compassionate ground.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19417 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Challenging the order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.151/2020 Po.Vi.Thi.-1 dated 19.02.2021 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to appoint the petitioner in the third respondent office or any other office on compassionate ground, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father, while working as Sub-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, died in harness on 24.04.2004. Since at that time, the petitioner was aged about 7 years, the petitioner's mother sent a representation dated 07.11.2004 to the third respondent requesting compassionate appointment to his son on his attaining majority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 that the mother of the petitioner has submitted the application well within the time limit for consideration under the quota of compassionate appointment and prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying on G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020 submitted that the third respondent has rightly passed the order of rejection and therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel on either sides and perused the materials.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was only 7 years at the time of the death of his father. Since there was no eligible person in their family at that time, the petitioner's mother made an application on behalf of the petitioner and that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment ought not to have been rejected by the third respondent.
7. This Court in W.P.(MD) No. 6387 of 2019 dated 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 18.08.2020 while considering the issue, referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.1480 of 2018 (S.Rajesh Vs. Managing Director) dated 25.07.2018 and the relevant paragraph therein reads as under:-
“16. The learned single Judge has placed reliance on number of other cases wherein it was held that claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer and there is no right of what so ever nature to claim compassionate appointment of any ground other than those provide for under the scheme. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be claimed after lapse of time much after the crisis is over. The continuation of the indigency alone cannot be considered by the department while examining the request of the applicant for appointment of compassionate ground. In the present case, the petitioner could not claim his right to appoint of compassionate ground years after his father had passed away. Further the letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner states that the respondents made a reference to the Government seeking clarification as whether the compassionate appointment could be considered to another legal heir when a representation was already made by another legal 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 heir seeking compassionate appointment is pending. The Government clarified that there was not possible. Appointment on compassionate ground can be made only in accordance with the scheme. The order of single Judge does not warrant any interference.”
8. While dealing with similar issue in W.P.No.2749 of 2020 dated 15.02.2022, this Court held as under:-
“7. Identical issue came up before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1749 of 2019 (Sudhanthira Devi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) [in the said Judgment, myself (DKKJ) is one of the member] and the Division Bench, by Judgment dated 03.09.2019, following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, has held that applications for compassionate appointment submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be entertained.
8. In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
“8. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its 4/8 direction on 9-8- 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee.
9. ...
10. Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court held: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138) SCC pp.141-42, para
6) “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
9. The Full Bench of this Court in Paragraph No.13 of the order dated 11.03.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.7016 of 2011 has held as follows:
“13. In the light of the above we find that the judgment in the case of A.Kamatchi v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2013) 2 CWC 758 is not only contrary to the law laid down in the case of E.Ramasamy v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2006) 4 MLJ 1080, but it also has, as indicated by our brother, Justice Subramonium Prasad, in his judgment, misconstrued the same. In view of what has been indicated above we are also of the view that the period of three years is a rationale and reasonable period under the relevant Government Orders and the rules. We may, however, observe that it is open to the State Government to make any provision for relaxation of the period in exceptionally rare cases on the principles as indicated herein above.””
9. In view of the above decisions, law is quite settled and, 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 therefore, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
27.07.2022 Index:Yes/No ssm To
1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, N.V.Natarajan Maaligai, No.170, EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
2.The Joint Registrar, O/o. The Regional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu.
3.The Deputy Registrar, O/o. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Public Distribution Scheme, Villupuram Puducherry Road, Villupuram 605 602.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19417 of 2022 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
ssm W.P.No.19417 of 2022 27.07.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis