Shri.Muniasamy v. The Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Against WP(MD)No.21724 of 2018 Muniasamy ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Campus, Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Deputy Director, Health Services, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3.The Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Eral - 628 801, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents / Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 16.08.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.21724 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

Prayer in WP(MD). 21724 of 2018 :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.12854/A2/18 dated 16.05.2018, of the respondents and quash the same and consequently appoint the petitioner in a suitable vacancy under compassionate category and pass orders.

For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar for Mr.U.Kasipandian For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader 1/4

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY,J.) Challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.21724 of 2018, dated 16.08.2021, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal. 2.The appellant has filed the Writ Petition to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.05.2018 of the respondents and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint him in a suitable vacancy under compassionate category. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was working as Village Health Nurse and she died in harness on 16.05.2001 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. According to the petitioner, he was two years at the time of death of his mother.

The petitioner submitted his application seeking for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 18 years on 06.06.2017. The second respondent by order dated 16.05.2018 rejected the petitioner's application stating that he has submitted his application beyond three years from the date of death of his mother on 16.05.2001. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge by order dated 16.08.2021 dismissed the Writ Petition finding that the petitioner has submitted his application after nearly 17 years from the date of death of his mother. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the ratio laid down in the following Judgments:- (i) In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, the Honourable Supreme held as follows:- "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 cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

(ii) In Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:

2/4

"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 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 direction on 9-8- 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee."

(iii) In the unreported Judgment of the Honourable Full Bench of this Court dated 11.03.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.7016 of 2011, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the applications for compassionate appointment submitted beyond the period of three years cannot be entertained.

4.Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that even as per G.O(Ms)No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the application for compassionate ground appointment should be made within three years from the date of the death of the Government servant. 5.On a reading of the said G.O, it is also clear that the Government has prescribed the minimum age of 18 years at the time of submitting the application for compassionate ground appointment. It is needless to say that 18 years age limit fixed in the G.O is for getting an compassionate appointment. 6.When the appellant was only two years on the date of death of his mother, the period of limitation of three years cannot be extended for submitting the application for compassionate ground appointment. In the G.

O, it has also been stated that the appointing authorities shall examine the financial condition of the deceased Government servant and offer job to an eligible member of the family only after satisfying themselves that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis.

7.In the case on hand, when the appellant was able to get over the crisis and was able to survive for more than 17 years and has also completed Bachelor Degree, the very purpose of providing compassionate appointment would be defeated if the application submitted by the appellant is considered in his favour after a 3/4

lapse of 17 years. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ps Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To 1.The Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Campus, Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Deputy Director, Health Services, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3.The Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Eral - 628 801, Thoothukudi District.

+1 CC to M/s.U.KASIPANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-33070[F] dated 28/10/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-33203[F] dated 29/10/2021 ) 28.10.2021 RD/PM(15/11/2021) 4P 6C 4/4