Amudha Valli v. The Government Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.NO.6010 OF 2009 Amudha Valli
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of National Highways, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Chief Engineer, National Highways & Rural Development Department, Chennai - 5.
3. The Divisional Engineer, Office of the National Highways, Cuddalore.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer Rural Development and National Highways Department Chidambaram.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th respondent culminating Roc.no.119/2008 dated 27.11.2008 and quash the impugned order dated 27.11.2008 and consequently to direct the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner on the compassionate ground in any where in the respondents Department. For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj Government Advocate
O R D E R
Heard Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Government Advocate for the State/R1, Chief Engineer and other officials of the National Highways and Rural Development Department/R2 to R4.
2. The petitioner's father was an employee with the Highways Department. He joined service in 1981 as Office Assistant, attached to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Chidambaram. His service was regularised in 1981 and after putting in nearly 17 years of service, he died in harness on 26.06.2000. He was survived by his widow Bhavani and two daughters, Anushya Devi and the petitioner. At the time of her father's demise, the petitioner was 12 years old and her elder sister was studying in 9th standard.
3. An application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner's mother on 11.02.2002 for appointment of the petitioner's elder sister. The application was returned calling for certain documents and clarifications and the same is stated to have re-presented with the required particulars. While so, the State imposed a ban on all appointments including compassionate appointments from 01.11.2001 to 28.02.2006. Thus, without going into the question of whether the application was
re-presented or not and assuming that the application was represented, the same could not have been considered by the respondents till the lifting of the ban on 28.02.2006.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner's mother passed away on 25.03.2006 and the petitioner's sister was married in the year 2007. Her sister had sought compassionate appointment vide application dated 23.05.2006 that has come to be rejected by R1 on 07.09.2006 citing the inordinate delay in filing of the application. The petitioner, who is said to be unmarried as on date, has filed an application on 23.10.2008 which has also come to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.11.2008, also citing inordinate delay.
5. I am of the view that there has been no delay on the part of the petitioner or the family members in seeking compassionate appointment. At the time of the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was a mere child and it was hence that the petitioner's mother had sought appointment for the older sister, who was herself only in the 9th standard. The affidavit filed by the petitioner reveals that her mother was then ailing and hence did not seek compassionate appointment herself. Thus the request for compassionate appointment has been made as early as in 11.02.2002 and this aspect is not disputed by the respondents in their counter. Thereafter, it is the policy of the State that stood in the way of consideration of the application/the petitioner's sister. Until lifting of ban on 28.02.2006, nothing could have been done by the petitioner or members of her family.
6. Immediately upon lifting of the ban, the older sister of the petitioner has filed an application on 23.05.2006 and thereafter the petitioner has also filed an application on 23.10.2008 after rejection of her sister's application. The order of rejection in the case of older sister is stated to have attained finality. The time lines would show that the request for compassionate appointment has been consistent and timely and in these circumstances it is only appropriate that the State should extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition allowed. There is a direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer/R4 to accommodate the
petitioner in a suitable post and report compliance of this order on or before 27.09.2021. No costs.
8. List on 27.09.2021 for reporting compliance. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar sl To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of National Highways, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Chief Engineer, National Highways & Rural Development Department, Chennai - 5.
3. The Divisional Engineer, Office of the National Highways, Cuddalore.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer Rural Development and National Highways Department Chidambaram.
+1cc to Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Advocate, S.R.No.42487 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.42668 W.P.No.6010 of 2009 SRA(CO) RLP(14/09/2021)