Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2772
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & P. DEVADASS, JJ.
P. Venkatesan @ Thirumaran
Versus
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, 'Ezhilagam' & Another
Writ Appeal (MD)No. 4 of 2012
Decided On : 02-08-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Rengaramanujam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, A.K. Baskara Pandian, Special Government Pleader, R2, P. Srinivas, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for compassionate appointment based on civil death and the applicability of time limits for seeking compassionate appointments.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Denial of Appointment on Compassionate Ground - [LIC OF INDIA Vs. ANURADHA [2004 SC 2070], N.PANKAJAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [2006 (3) MLJ 702], G.O.4(D) No.17, Labour and Employment (D1) Department, dated 8.5.1996, G.O.Ms.No.82, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to compassionate appointments and civil death, emphasizing the need to prove civil death through a suit in a civil court. It also highlighted the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointments and the applicability of seniority based on the date of death.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's father went missing in 1987 and was declared legally dead in 1998. The appellant's mother sought compassionate appointment for the appellant, which was denied by the Writ Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was eligible for compassionate appointment based on the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case.
Issues: The denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the appellant and the applicability of the time limit for seeking compassionate appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's eligibility for compassionate appointment was established based on the legal principles related to civil death and compassionate appointments.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the appellant and directing the respondents to appoint the appellant in a suitable post on compassionate ground within two months.
P. Devadass, J. With the leave of the Court Venkatesan @ Thirumaran, son of Mariyayee, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.849 of 2007, preferred this Writ Appeal as against the Writ Court's denial of appointment to him on compassionate ground.
2. Noticing the following factual matrix becomes necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal:
(i) One Palani was in the service of second respondent/Dindigul Municipality, as a Scavenger. His wife is Mariyayee (writ petitioner). Their son is Venkatesan @ Thirumaran (appellant). From 22.12.1987, Palani was missing. In spite of hectic search, he could not be found. On 12.2.1988, his wife complained to Dindigul Town Police. On 15.2.1988, she had informed it to the second respondent. However, second respondent initiated disciplinary action as against her husband for unauthorised absence. Notice of enquiry could not be served on him. On 7.1.1993, second respondent dismissed him from service. On 1.12.1995, after enquiry, Tahsildar, Dindigul, confirmed missing of the said Palani from 22.12.1987. On 1.6.1996, Palani's wife issued legal notice to the second respondent demanding disbursement of death benefits and the appointment of appellant on compassionate ground, since her husband suffered legal death. It was acknowledged by the second respondent. However, there was no action.
(ii) In the circumstances, in O.S.No.40 of 1997, in the Court of District Munsif, Dindigul, Palani's wife sought for a declaration that her husband was dead and also certain other reliefs. On 17.12.1998, the learned District Munsif declared that Palani suffered legal death. On 30.3.2001, it was also confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, on appeal in A.S.No.209 of 1999.
(iii) On 7.5.2001, enclosing the Judgments of the Civil Courts, Mariyayee stated to the second respondent that in spite of her continuous request for disbursement of death benefits and appointment on compassionate ground to her son, no action was taken and wanted immediate action. Again, on 15.10.2003, she gave another application. But, they did not evoke any response from the second respondent.
(iv) In the circumstances, in this Court, she filed W.P.No.37759 of 2004. On 20.12.2004, this Court directed the second respondent to dispose of her representation dated 15.10.2003 on merits within a prescribed time.
(v) On 31.5.2005, the second respondent passed order rejecting her application, since already her husband was dismissed from service.
(vi) In the circumstances, in this Court, she filed W.P.(MD)No.849 of 2007. On 12.9.2007, the Writ Court noticing that since Palani already suffered legal death, which was also affirmed by the Civil Courts, he cannot be dismissed from service on account of unauthorised absence, directed disbursement of death benefits to his wife. However, the Court refused the relief of appointment on compassionate ground to her son, since the death was more than 20 years ago.
3. Since on 20.1.2008, the writ petitioner Mariyayee passed away, with the leave of this Court, her son appealed as against denial of appointment on compassionate ground to him.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the legal death of appellant's father, second respondent has been continuously asked to provide appointment to the appellant on compassionate ground. In the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of such a relief on the ground that the death of his father was more than 20 years ago, will not arise. The learned counsel also contended that in N.PANKAJAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [2006 (3) MLJ 702] , under similar circumstances, this Court directed appointment on compassionate ground to the wife of a person, who suffered civil death. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that refusal of the Writ Court to direct the respondents to appoint the appellant on compassionate ground is unsustainable.
5. According to the learned counsel for the second responden
