A.Nehru v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ Writ Petition No.547 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 A.Nehru .. Petitioner ..vs..
1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.
2. The Divisional Engineer (HW), O/o.Divisional Engineer (HW), Salem-636 007.
3. Kadayampatti Panchayat Union rep. by its Commissioner, Kadayampatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
.. Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents 1 and 3 herein i.e. in Na.Ka.No.3321/2006/A4 dated 13.01.2010 of the 3rd respondent and in O.Mu.No.1213/2010/Ni3 dated 05.03.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, quash the said rejection orders and consequently, direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's valid claim for compassionate appointment as a Road Worker based on his mother's earliest Application dated 15.06.1996 and of the petitioner dated 10.02.2000 by way of continuation and issue orders on merits within a time to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection orders made in Na.Ka.No.3321/2006/A4 dated 13.01.2010 by the 3rd respondent and made in O.Mu.No.1213/2010/Ni3 dated 05.03.2010 by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and for consequential reliefs.
2.
The facts of the case are as follows:
(a) The petitioner's father was working as a Road Worker and while he was in active employment, he died on 08.11.1995 leaving behind his wife Sakunthala, two daughters and two sons
including the petitioner as his legal heirs and at the time of his death, all the above children were minors. Therefore, the petitioner's mother has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 15.06.1996 and that application is pending. (b) In the meantime, the petitioner had attained majority and his mother has given a ''No Objection Certificate'' for appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds on 31.12.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner has duly produced necessary Certificates to the respondents as required by them to appoint him on compassionate ground. But on 13.01.2010, the 3rd respondent communicated an order dated 31.12.2009 alleged to have passed by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner has applied only on 10.10.
2002 after the expiry of 6 years and 11 months from the date of his father's death without taking into consideration of the fact that original application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 15.06.1996 by his mother. Hence, to set aside the rejection orders of the respondents 1 and 3 and seeking consequential reliefs, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
3.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application seeking compassionate ground appointment by the petitioner's mother which was made on 15.06.1996 is still pending. But the petitioner has submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 31.12.2001 after attaining majority. Therefore, it has to be construed that the said application has been submitted on 15.06.1996 on which date the original application was made by the petitioner's mother. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order has to be quashed.
4.
Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that by letter No.Mu.Mu.No.57994/2000/N3 dated 23.11.2001, the petitioner's mother was directed to resubmit an application for appointment on compassionate ground by the 1st respondent. When that be so, the application made by the petitioner was correctly rejected by the concerned authorities.
5.
The submissions made by both the parties have been considered.
6.
The fact remains that when the application seeking compassionate ground appointment by the mother of the petitioner is still pending, the application of the petitioner was rejected by way of the impugned order dated 13.01.2010 made by the 3rd respondent and the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 of the 1st respondent. It appears that the application made by the petitioner's mother is pending and none of the family members have got any employment on compassionate grounds. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is fair to direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the Writ Petitioner's mother as well as the Writ Petitioner on the basis of available documents and to pass orders in respect of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to dispose of the applications seeking appointment on compassionate grounds made by the petitioner's mother dated 15.06.1996 and the petitioner dated 31.12.2001 jointly, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
7.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsi To
1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.
2. The Divisional Engineer (HW), O/o.Divisional Engineer (HW), Salem-636 007.
3. The Commissioner, Kadayampatti Panchayat Union, Kadayampatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District +1cc to Mr.M.Balasubramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.57470 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.57534 SR(CO) EU(25/11/2016) Writ Petition No.547 of 2011