Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: appointment to compassionate grounds. in V.Sampath vs The District Collector on 19 December, 2011Matching Fragments
(i) Conduct Certificate;
(ii) Death Certificate of the deceased Vadivel (petitioner's father);
(iii) Tahsildar Certificate of the death of Vadivel in harness;
(iv) Tahsildar Certificate about the properties held by the deceased and the source of income;
(v) The Certificate issued by the Tahsildar that the deceased Vadivel's widow was not re-married and
(vi) The Certificate issued by the Tahsildar about the family status of the petitioner.
(g) After getting the necessary certificates, on 14.2.2007, the petitioner applied to the first respondent-District Collector for appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father. The District Collector however passed the order on 2.1.2008, rejecting the application on compassionate grounds, on the sole ground that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, was made after three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's father on 2.10.1995.
4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, inter-alia stating as follows:
(i) The petitioner Thiru.V.Sampath who is the son of late Thiru.Vadivel, who was working as Gang Coolie in Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union Office, died on 2.10.1995 while in service. The family of the deceased employee included his wife Tmt.Bhoopathy, daughter--Tmt.Vasanthi, sons--Saravanan and Sampath (writ petitioner).
(ii) The petitioner being one of the heirs of the deceased employee submitted application for appointment on compassionate grounds belatedly on 14.2.2007 to the Block Development Officer (for short, 'the BDO'), Tiruvannamalai, and after scrutinising the relevant documents, the proposal for compassionate grounds appointment was forwarded to the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, in the office letter No.2613/2007/PA4, dated 28.5.2007 for orders.
(vi) The application on compassionate grounds appointment should be made within three years from the date of the death of his father. The petitioner's father died on 2.10.1995, but the application seeking compassionate appointment was made belatedly after 12 years from the date of his father's death, and therefore, as per the Government Orders issued periodically, the application for compassionate appointment shall be made within the time limit, which is contrary to the guidelines of the Government in the said Government letter dated 8.10.2007, fixing the three years' period of time from the date of the death of the Government servant to make an application and it cannot be deviated from such rules and guidelines for any reason and on the ground of belated application, the petitioner's request has been rejected, as he has made the said application only on 14.2.2007.
and
(c) 2010 (7) MLJ 644 (Madras High Court): (M.Uma Vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), TNEB):
"Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner."
"Whether the order rejecting the application for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that it was not submitted within three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee is justified?"
"10. In the light of the above judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench judgments of this Court and having regard to the fact that the petitioner's application was rejected by order dated 26.2.2005 on the ground that she has not submitted the application within three years and the application was submitted by the petitioner's brother on 29.4.2002 and after the said rejection, the petitioner applied on 10.6.2002 and the proof of sending the application is filed in the typed set of papers and also the fact that the petitioner's family is still in indigent circumstances, I am of a firm view that the petitioner has made out a case to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order, i.e. the petitioner has not applied within three years from the date of the death of the petitioner's father. Necessary revised order is directed to be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."