Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 211
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. DHANAPALAN & V.M. VELUMANI, JJ.
S. Ganesh
Versus
The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others
W.A.(MD).No. 1144 of 2012
Decided on: 11-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:D. Ganesh Moorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Manohar, Advocate.
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be considered based on the financial condition of the deceased employee's family.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Railway Employee - [Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 - Section 4(1)] - [Compassionate Appointment Rules] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to compassionate appointment, emphasizing that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be considered based on the financial condition of the deceased employee's family. The court highlighted the need for timely consideration of compassionate appointment requests and the eligibility criteria for such appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's father, a Railway Protection Force employee, was declared medically unfit and terminated from service. The appellant sought compassionate appointment due to the family's indigent circumstances. The court found that the appellant proved his indigent circumstances and was entitled to compassionate appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's family was in indigent circumstances and that the appellant was entitled to compassionate appointment based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's eligibility for compassionate appointment, the financial condition of the family, and the rejection of the appellant's application on flimsy grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be considered based on the financial condition of the deceased employee's family. It emphasized the need for timely consideration of compassionate appointment requests and the eligibility criteria for such appointments.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to provide a suitable job to the appellant on compassionate grounds within eight weeks.
V.M. Velumani, J.
The Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.2226 of 2011 has come up with this appeal challenging the order dated 21.11.2011 dismissing the said Writ Petition.
2. Facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) The appellant's father K. Sankarasekaran was working as Head Constable in Railway Protection Force Department at Tuticorin Harbour (TNHP) outpost. He was suffering from chronic kidney disease and in the end stage of renal failure. He was taking treatment in private hospitals and Railway Hospital at Tuticorin. His two kidneys were not functioning and he is taking treatment at Kovai Medical Centre at Coimbatore. He has to go to Coimbatore for dialysis at least three times in a week.
(ii) Due to his ill-health, the appellant's father gave a representation on 03.01.2010 to the Chief Medical Director, Chennai and the Chief Medical Superintendent, Madurai to declare him as unfit to do the job, so as to enable him to retire on medical incapacity. Since no order was passed on the said representation, he filed W.P. No. 858 of 2010 before this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 03.01.2010 and this Court by an order dated 28.01.2010 directed the Chief Medical Director, Chennai to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 03.01.2010.
(iii) The Chief Medical Director, Chennai directed the appellant's father to appear before the Medical Board, Chennai. After medical check up, the Medical Board recommended the 4th respondent to declare the appellant's father unfit for all classes of job. The 4th respondent by Certificate No. UF 03/2010-11 dated 12.04.2010, declared the appellant's father as unfit in all classes of jobs in Railway and terminated his service with effect from 12.04.2010.
(iv) The appellant, by a representation dated 21.04.2010 sought job for him on compassionate ground. The appellant completed the course of B.L. Degree at that time. The respondents informed the appellant that his representation would be considered only on seniority basis. The appellant, therefore, filed W.P.(MD).No.8584 of 2010 and this Court by an order dated 07.07.2010, directed the 4th respondent to consider his representation dated 21.04.2010 on merits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Since no order was passed within the time granted by this Court, the appellant filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.644 of 2010. This Court dismissed the same, based on the order dated 22.10.2010 produced by the respondents stating that appointment on compassionate ground is under process.
(v) As instructed by the respondents, the appellant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondents, though enquired and verified his community certificate, by an order dated 27.01.2011, rejected his application on flimsy grounds. The appellant filed W.P.(MD).No.2226 of 2011 to quash the said order and for a direction to the respondents to provide him job on compassionate ground. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and after considering the materials available on record, dismissed the said the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2226 of 2011 by an order dated 21.11.2011.
Challenging the said order of dismissal, the appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge failed to consider that,
(a) only after appellant's father was declared medically unfit by Medical Board for all kind of work and his services were terminated, the appellant had given representation for a job on compassionate grounds.
(b) The appellant is not having any source of income for the day-to-day medical expenses of his father and the appellant and his father are living separately from other sons and daughters and that the appellant is only looking after his father without any valuable source of income.
(c) The appellant has complet
