Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, P.T. ASHA, JJ.
The Commissioner Marakannam Panchayat Union Marakkanam, Villupuram District & Others - Petitioner
Versus
D. Saravanan & Others - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 774 & 775 of 2017 & C.M.P. Nos. 10809 & 10810 of 2017
Decided On : 10-06-2019
For the Appearing Parties :P. Chinnadurai, S.N. Ravichandran, Advocates, A. Sri Jeyanthi, Special Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in seeking compassionate appointment and the financial status of the petitioner are crucial factors in determining the eligibility for compassionate appointment.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Government Service - G.O.Ms.No.120 - (1994) 4 SCC 138 - (2019) 3 SCC 653 - (2005) 10 SCC 289 - (2006) 5 SCC 766 - (2011) 3 SCC 42
Fact of the Case:
The Writ petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his mother, who was a Maternity Assistant in Vaidapakkam Centre. The court allowed the petition based on the absence of a limitation for making a request for compassionate appointment prior to 26.06.1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Writ petitioner's delay in seeking compassionate appointment and the financial status of the petitioner were crucial factors. The court set aside the order for compassionate appointment based on the delay in seeking the appointment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in seeking compassionate appointment and the financial status of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents such as (1994) 4 SCC 138 and (2019) 3 SCC 653 to emphasize the need for immediate assistance in compassionate appointments and the impact of delay on such appointments.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order for compassionate appointment and directed the 2nd respondent to pay the terminal benefits to the Writ petitioner and his brother within a specified period.
P.T. Asha, J.
(Prayer: W.A.No.774 of 2017 filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order in W.P.No.17751 of 2007 (T) (O.A.No.1981 of 2004) dated 19.11.2014 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
W.A.No.775 of 2017 filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order in W.P.No.17751 of 2007 (T) (O.A.No.1981 of 2004) dated 19.11.2014 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.)
The Intra-Court appeals W.A.No.774 of 2017 is filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents and W.A.No.775 of 2017 is filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the Writ Petition, challenging the order passed in W.P.No.17751 of 2007, in and by which the learned Judge has quashed the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made by the Writ petitioner for compassionate appointment by an order dated 16.06.1999 and directing the 1st respondent to consider afresh the representation made by the Writ petitioner dated 30.06.2003. The parties in these appeals are referred to in their same litigative status as in the Writ Petition.
2. The following chronology of dates and events are necessary for disposing of the above Writ Appeals:
* 06.01.1973 – The petitioner's mother, D. Emrose was appointed as a Maternity Assistant in Vaidapakkam Centre
* 15.08.1979 – D. Emrose dies leaving behind her surviving her mother and two sons, her husband having pre-deceased her. (The Writ petitioner was aged 7 years on the date of the death of his mother)
* 21.01.1992 – The Writ petitioner submits an application seeking compassionate appointment.
* 13.11.1998 – The 2nd respondent initmates the Writ petitioner that his name which is in seniority list No.157 would be considered in due course after getting instructions from the Government.
Several representations are addressed to the authorities.
* 01.12.1997 – The 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent recommending that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment be considered favourably.
* 12.05.1999 – the 1st respondent rejects the request made by the Writ petitioner and forwards the order to the Director Rural Development with a copy marked to the 2nd respondent.
* 16.06.1999 – The rejection order is communicated to the Writ petitioner.
* 21.06.2002 – The Writ petitioner addressed the 2nd respondent requesting him to consider his request for compassionate appointment (there is no mention made about the rejection).
* 30.06.2003 – Similar request was made by the Writ petitioner to the 1st respondent (once again the earlier order of rejection not mentioned).
* 2004 – The Writ petitioner seeks reconsideration of the order of rejection dated 16.06.1999 of the 2nd respondent and directing the 1st respondent to consider the appeal by filing O.A.No.1981 of 2004 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (The Writ petitioner does not refer to order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the request for compassionate appointment which order was communicated to him by the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 16.06.1999). This application was later transferred to the file of this Court on the abolition of the Tribunal and re-numbered as W.P.No.17751 of 2007 (T).
* 19.11.2014 – Order passed in W.P.No.17751 of 2007 (T). This Court allows the Writ Petition with a direction to the Government to provide compassionate appointment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
* 10.07.2015 – These Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.774 and 775 of 2017) were filed.
3. The learned Judge has allowed the petition on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.120, did not prescribe any limitation for making a request for compassionate appointment made prior to 26.06.1995. Considering the fact that the Writ petitioner's request has been made as early as in the year 1992, the learned Judge was of the opinion that he should be given compassionate employment.
4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner's mother was not a permanent Government servan
