BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.04.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A(MD)No.625 of 2024 R.Vasantha ... Appellant vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, St.George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director, O/o. Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

3.The Dean, Kanyakumari Government Medical College, Asaripallam, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of this Court dated 13.07.2023 passed in W.P(MD)No.4710 of

2021.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Mutharasu For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 13.07.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.4710 of 2021, whereby, the claim of the Writ Petitioner to appoint her son on compassionate ground due to the death of her husband was rejected.

2.The husband of the Writ Petitioner, R.Muthu Ramalingam, was initially appointed temporarily on 04.07.2005 on consolidated pay as Store Keeper. Subsequently, he was brought under regular time scale of pay with effect from 01.04.2007 vide G.O.(Ms)No.144, Health and Family Welfare (E2) Department, dated 30.04.2007 and later, his services were regularised as per G.O.Ms.No.218, Health and Family Welfare (AA2) Department, dated 09.09.2016 with effect from 01.04.2007. In the meanwhile, while in service, the appellant's husband died due to harness on 14.11.2008 leaving behind the appellant, two daughters and one son. The Writ Petitioner had submitted an application on 27.02.2009 seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. But, however, the said application came to be rejected, as her husband was working only on temporary basis. Since thereafter, the services of her husband came to be regularised, the appellant submitted a fresh alternate application seeking appointment on compassionate ground to her son on 11.04.2018, since her son attained majority in the year 2018. However, the application was rejected by an order of the third respondent, dated 28.04.2020, as the application was filed with an inordinate delay of 9½ years from the date of death of the employee and further, the submission of alternate application is not permissible.

Challenging the same, the Writ Petitioner has approached the Writ Court.

3.The learned Judge, by the impugned order, dated 13.07.2023, rejected the claim of the Writ Petitioner on the ground that since in view of G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, the Writ Petitioner cannot make any alternate application for her son. Assailing the impugned order, the appellant is before this Court.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that though the appellant had filed an application for compassionate appointment on

27.02.2009, her application came to be rejected only on the ground that the services of her husband was only temporary, but however, due to subsequent regularisation granted after eight years, there is a change of circumstance and still the family is under penurious circumstance and since the appellant's son attained majority, she has made an alternate application seeking for appointment for her son on compassionate ground and the learned Judge has failed to consider this aspect and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that on the date of filing of the application by the appellant seeking for compassionate appointment, the services of the appellant's husband was only on temporary basis and in view of the rules in vogue, the appellant is not entitled to seek for compassionate appointment and further, the present alternate application submitted by the appellant seeking for appointment for her son is not permissible. The learned Addi