SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 274

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
G. Ganapathy – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 17308 of 1999
Decided on: 09-01-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Arunkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3, M.S. Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader, R2, S. Siva Shanmugam, Advocate.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Employment Rights - Article 12, Article 37, Article 41, Article 46 - [Article 12, Article 37, Article 41, Article 46] - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in a State-owned Corporation and the applicability of executive orders and guidelines for compassionate appointments. The court emphasized the duty of the State to apply the Directive Principles of State Policy in making laws and considered the right to work and promotion of economic interests of Scheduled Castes under the Constitution of India. The court directed the Animal Husbandry Department to provide a suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's father, a casual laborer at a State-owned Corporation, passed away, leaving the family in financial crisis. The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, but the Corporation rejected the claim citing closure. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the Animal Husbandry Department to provide a suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds whenever a vacancy arises, emphasizing the duty of the State to apply the Directive Principles of State Policy in making laws.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment by the State-owned Corporation citing closure, leading to financial hardship for the deceased employee's family.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the State to apply the Directive Principles of State Policy in making laws and directed the Animal Husbandry Department to provide a suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Animal Husbandry Department to provide a suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds whenever a vacancy arises.

Judgment

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner submits that the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited, is a State owned Corporation and falls within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner further submits that the Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Limited, being the instrumentality of the State, all the executive orders passed by the Government in the matter of employment to Government servant are also applicable to the employees of TAPCO. The petitioner further submits that to be specific, the executive instructions issued in the form of Government Orders and guidelines for compassionate appointments will also govern the employees of TAPCO.

2. The petitioner further submits that his father (Late) P.G. Chandran, belonging to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community, a Scheduled Caste, was appointed as a casual labour on 14.03.1981 at Vellore Branch of the second respondent's Corporation. The petitioner's father has been continuing in the said capacity for about 10 years. Like, the petitioner's father throughout the State, there were number of causal labourers, who have been working in the second respondent's Corporation on casual basis without regularization. The petitioner further submits that the Association to which the petitioner's father belonged took up the matter to the higher authorities of the TAPCO for regularization of their services, as they have put in long number of years of service. The request of the Association was considered by the TAPCO and the 81st Board Meeting held on 30.11.1988, passed a resolution for creation of 100 posts of Farm Assistants in the TAPCO. It was also resolved to fill up the said posts by prompting the casual labourers working in the TAPCO as Farm Assistants. The petitioner further submits that by proceedings dated 11.04.1990 made in Roc.No.19551/E1/89, the Managing Director of the second respondent Corporation has appointed the petitioner's father as Farm Assistant in the Marketing Unit of the Vellore Branch of the Corporation. The scale of pay for the post of Farm Assistant has been fixed as Rs.750-12-870-14-940. The order of appointment will take effect from 16.04.1990. In the order of appointment itself, it has been specifically stated that the services of the petitioner's father will be governed by the Service Rules of the TAPCO. Thus, the petitioner's father is a regular employee of the TAPCO for all purposes and he is entitled to all the rights and privileges governing the posts.

3. The petitioner further submits that while his father was working as Farm Assistant in the Marketing Unit at Nandanam, he died due to illness on 30.09.1998. At the time of death, the age of the petitioner's father was 48. The petitioner's father had 10 years of service ahead to reach his age of superannuation. The petitioner's father was the only breadwinner of his family and the family has no other independent source of income. At the time of death, the petitioner's father left behind his wife, 5 daughters and 1 son as his legal-heirs. The details of legal-heirs are as follows:-

Sl.No

Name

Age

Relationship with petitioner's father

1

Tmt.C.Pavanammal

47

wife

2

Tmt.Kala

28

Daughter

3

Selvi Mala

26

Daughter

4

Tmt.Dhanalakshmi

25

Daughter

5.

Selvan Ganapathy

24

Son

6.

Selvi Sivasankari

19

Daughter

7.

Selvi Gayathri

17

Daughter

The petitioner further submits that due to the sudden death of his father, the family of the deceased was put to economic death. The petitioner is the only male member of his family without any employment. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner had just completed his SSLC. Subsequently, he passed Plus Two examination held in March 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner joined B.Sc. Course in the local college at Vellore

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top