IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments must be processed promptly, and undue delays can unjustly affect eligibility, warranting compensation for affected applicants.

JUDGMENT :

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 17.08.2022 in W.P. No. 26951 of 2015.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court in W.P. No. 26951 of 2015, dated 17.08.2022, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant.

Brief Facts:

2. The appellants father M. Murugan was working as Tamil Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School and died on 22.09.1997 while he was in service. The appellant made an application to the 3rd respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 30.03.1999 with all relevant documents. The said application was not considered by the authorities and the same was rejected after 14 years by proceedings dated 07.05.2013. Challenging the said proceedings, the appellant had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 20430 of 2013 before this Court and by order dated 08.09.2014, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent-authorities to reconsider the case of the appellant and pass suitable orders. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the respondent had passed orders dated 12.01.2015 and again rejected the claim of the petitioner. Challenging the said rejection order, the appellant has again filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 26951 of 2015, the said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court, by order dated 17.08.2022. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the 3rd respondent has passed the rejection orders after 14 years on the ground that the appellant's brother supports the appellant's family. Hence, the writ court has set aside the rejection order and directed the respondent-authorites to consider the appellant's case on merits and pass orders in the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P. No. 20430/2013, dated 08.09.2014. Even after the said directions, the 2nd respondent again rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 12.01.2015.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impuged order dated 17.08.2022 without considering the fact that there was no delay at any point on the part of the appellant, had dismissed the writ petition in W.P. No. 26951 of 2015 on the ground that the appellant is overaged. Hence the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the appellant had submitted application for the compassionate appointment in the year 1999 and slept over his right for about 14 years till the rejection order passed by the respondent-authorities in the year 2013, thereafter, the appellant approached the writ Court. The writ Court after taking into consideration of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the eligibility age criteria is 40 years as upper age limit, had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant is over aged and not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

6. The learned Government Pleader has further submitted that the respondent-authority while calculating the indigent circumstances of the appellant's family, came to know that the deceased Government employees family is not in poverty since two of the heirs in his family are working in the Government and Private Sectors and are financially dependent. Therefore, it is clear that since all the heirs in the deceased family members are married and living as a separate family, there are no heirs in the family in a destitute condition to be maintained by the appellant herein and thus the deceased government employee's family is not in indigent circumstances. Hence the impugned order of the writ court is perfectly valid and based on the guidelines framed by the Government, and does not require any interference by this Cou