Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 17010
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
M.Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Compassionate appointments must be processed promptly to avoid unjust hardships, but applicants must meet age eligibility criteria defined in relevant guidelines.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Appeal - G.O.Ms.No. 18 - In this case, the court addressed the rejection of a compassionate appointment application, analyzing the guidelines under G.O.Ms.No. 18 and determined that despite undue delay by authorities, age limitation precluded the appellant's appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed for compassionate appointment 14 years after the death of his father, a government employee, only to be denied due to alleged family stability and age limitations.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the appellant's application was consistent with the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No. 18 and if the subsequent dismissal of the writ petition by the lower court was legally justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The excessive delay by the respondents in processing the appellant's application was unjustified; however, the appellant's age at the time of appeal exceeded the maximum age limits set forth in the relevant G.O.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was partly allowed, with a directive for the respondent authorities to compensate the appellant for the delay.
J U D G M E N T
(Order of this Court was made by D.Krishnakumar, Acting Chief Justice)
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 respodnent-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 respodnent 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 aget limit, had dismissed the writ petiton 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 emplopyees 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 memebrs 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 guidlines framed by the Government, and does not require any intereference by this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Governmen
