2024 Supreme(Mad) 195
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
K. Mahalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police, O/o The Director General of Police, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 24310 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
For the Petitioner:M. Padmanaban, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Yamuna Devi, Special Government Pleader.
The entitlement of a legal heir to seek compassionate appointment, the misapplication of superseded guidelines, and the application of the relevant rules for compassionate appointment.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Delayed Consideration - G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, and Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023 - The court discussed the delayed consideration of the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner's physical disability, and the relevant rules. It highlighted the misapplication of the superseded G.O.(Ms).No.18 and the entitlement of the petitioner's son to seek compassionate appointment under Rule 9 of the 2023 Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, widow of a deceased government servant, sought compassionate appointment for herself, which was delayed for over 15 years. After being granted the appointment, she expressed her inability to take up the job due to her disability and sought appointment for her son, which was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delayed consideration of the application caused inconvenience to the petitioner, and the rejection of her son's appointment request based on the superseded G.O.(Ms).No.18 was unsustainable. It held that the petitioner's son was entitled to seek compassionate appointment under Rule 9 of the 2023 Rules.
Issues: Delayed consideration of compassionate appointment, petitioner's physical disability, rejection of son's appointment request, misapplication of superseded guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delayed consideration of the application and the rejection of the son's appointment request based on the superseded guidelines were unjustified. It emphasized the entitlement of the petitioner's son to seek compassionate appointment under Rule 9 of the 2023 Rules.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The court directed the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation and issue an appointment order to the petitioner's son within three months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected in Na.Ka.No.A9/24487/376/2020 dated 12.05.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to Praveen Kumar, Son of Late Kumar, aged 29 years residing at 53, Jeeyar Narayanapalayam Street, Kancheepuram.)
1. Heard Mr.M.Padmanaban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner's husband V.Kumar, Head Constable HC-H29, died on 05.05.2005. After about two months from his death, the petitioner, who is a widow, had made an application on 24.07.2005, seeking for compassionate appointment for herself. The application was kept pending for more than 15 long years and ultimately, on 31.12.2020, the respondents had issued an appointment order. In the meantime, after the petitioner had made the application in the year 2005, she had met with an accident, owing to which, she suffered 70% disability in her vision in both eyes. When the respondents had issued the appointment order on 31.12.2020 as a Data Entry Assistant, she had expressed her inability to take up the job because of her disability and therefore, sought for appointment in favour of her second son, namely V.Praveen Kumar, through a representation dated 19.02.2021. However her representation in this regard has been rejected through the impugned order dated 12.05.2023, on the ground that an alternate application can be considered only when the legal heir of the deceased Government servant expires pending consideration of the application for compassionate appointment and not for physical disability.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that owing to the 70% disability in the petitioner's vision, the petitioner cannot perform the duties of a Data Entry Assistant and furthermore, she has also reached the age of 54 years, in view of the delayed consideration of her application for over 15 years.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the guidelines for compassionate appointment are provided for under G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, which does not provide for an alternate employment to a legal heir on the ground that the legal heir has become physically disabled and therefore, in the absence of any regulations or guidelines for altering the appointment order to another legal heir, the petitioner's request cannot be considered and thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. The eligibility of a legal heir of a deceased Government servant to seek for compassionate appointment, in the present case, is not under dispute. As a matter of fact, when the Government employee had died on 05.05.2005, the application was made by his widow/petitioner on 24.07.2005 itself, which is after about 2 months from the death. The respondents have also considered her application positively and granted her compassionate appointment on 31.12.2020. It is only the delay in considering the application, after more than 15 years, which has caused inconvenience to the petitioner to accept the job. The reason assigned by her for the inability to take the appointment is because of the accident she had met during the pendency of the application for compassionate appointment, whereby she had lost 70% of her vision in both eyes. The reason assigned by her for not taking up the job and seeking for compassionate appointment for her son is, thus, totally justifiable.
6. No acceptable explanation has been rendered by the respondents for having considered her application, after an inordinate delay of 15 years. The only reason adopted by the respondents in the impugned order is that there is no provision in G.O.(Ms).No.18, dated 23.01.2020 for granting alternate employment to another legal heir on the ground of physical disa