Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1897
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
A. Seranthiya Pillai
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.25438 of 2009 & M.P.No.2 of 2009
Decided On : 23-04-2010
For the Petitioner:M. Ramamoorthi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Murali, G.A.
The appointing authority must adhere to the provisions of the compassionate appointment scheme and cannot bypass the scheme's requirements.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Government Service - G.O.(Ms) No.10 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dt.13.2.2009 - G.O.(D) No.1025 Labour and Employment Department dated 22.11.1976, G.O.Ms.No.554 Labour and Employment Department dated 09.04.1990, G.O.(D) No.168, Labour and Employment Department dated 19.10.2000, G.O.Ms.No.314 Labour and Employment Department dated 13.11.1991 - The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the second respondent to process the application afresh by obtaining necessary particulars from the third respondent and thereafter decide the issue independently on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment in Government service following the death of his father, a Police Constable, and subsequent rejection of his claim based on age criteria and applicability of Government Orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim was opposed to the scheme of compassionate appointment and set it aside, remanding the matter for reevaluation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility for compassionate appointment based on the age of the deceased, applicability of Government Orders, and the authority responsible for processing such appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointing authority must adhere to the provisions of the compassionate appointment scheme and cannot bypass the scheme's requirements, emphasizing the need for independent evaluation of the petitioner's eligibility.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the second respondent for reevaluation of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
Even though the interim application alone is listed before me, by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging the order of the third respondent dated 13.08.2009 and to direct the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light G.O.(Ms) No.10 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dt.13.2.2009 and appoint him on compassionate grounds in Government service, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The writ petitioners father was working as a Police Constable for 30 years. While he was working in the Armed Reserve Police Force, Tiruchirappalli, he passed away on 26.03.2000 leaving behind his wife, four sons and two daughters. Out of them, the petitioner is the eldest son. It is seen that the application made by one of his brothers viz., A.Dharmaraj and the subsequent application made by the wife of the deceased came to be rejected on the ground that the deceased has crossed 50 years of age on the date of medical invalidation and therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment is not applicable. The petitioner has made representation for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the Government Order in G.O.(D) No.1025 Labour and Employment Department dated 22.11.1976 and also the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.554 Labour and Employment Department dated 09.04.1990 and G.O.(D) No.168, Labour and Employment Department dated 19.10.2000 by which the upper age limit of medical invalidation was extended upto 53 years. Based on the representation of the petitioner, the Head of the Department viz., the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 20.07.2009 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government has directed the application to be forwarded to the third respondent the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District for necessary action directing the third respondent to send a full fledged proposal along with the required certificates and documents, if the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, on receipt of the said communication from the second respondent, the third respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Government Order which has been relied upon by the petitioner in G.O. (D) No.168, Labour and Employment Department dated 19.10.2000 will be applicable prospectively and the petitioners father has passed away even before the said Government Order came into effect and he died after crossing 53 years thereby stating that the Government Order is not applicable to the facts of the petitioners case. It is as against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioners father was retired on medically invalidation on 13.11.1991 due to permanent incapacitation for further service as per the recommendation of medical board. His age on the date of retirement of invalidation was 53 years 4 months and 3 days. It is stated that the brother of the petitioner has made a request to the Chief Minister Cell on 24.07.2006 for compassionate appointment and that was referred to the Director General of Police, who has informed that the petitioners brother was not eligible on the ground that his father died after crossing 50 years on medical invalidation. It is therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Government on 16.06.2009 for appointment on compassionate grounds and that was endorsed to the effect that the petitioner is not eligible by applying G.O.(D) No.168, Labour and Employment Department dated 19.10.2000. It is the case of the respondents that as per the original Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1025 Labour and Employment Department dated 22.11.1976 and also the consequential Government Letter dated 27.08.1983, the medical invalidation should have been obtained before completion of 50 years so as to enable the legal
