BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.06.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A(MD)No.832 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6178 and 6179 of 2024 B.Suga Solai Raja ... Appellant vs

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Collectorate, Pudukottai.

2.The Block Development Officer, Aranthangi-Village Panchayat, Block Development Office, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of this Court dated 18.02.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.12653 of

2021.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.N.Sathish Kumar Additional Government Pleader *****

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.12653 of 2022, whereby, the claim of the petitioner to provide compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant or any other suitable post in view of the death of his father, was rejected.

2.The short facts involved in the appeal is that the Writ Petitioner's father G.Balasubramanian worked as a Block Development Officer in Aranthangi Panchayat Union Office, Pudukottai District, died on 04.01.2016, while he was in service. His mother, predeceased his father on 02.07.2014 and as such, the Writ Petitioner along with one married and another unmarried sisters faced severe financial crises. On the date of death of his father, the Writ Petitioner was a minor and submitted an application on 10.10.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. However, the District Collector/first respondent by order, dated 18.02.2019 rejected the claim of the Writ Petitioner on the ground that the Writ petitioner has not attained the age of majority on the date of death of his father and therefore, he again submitted an application on 28.09.2019 after attaining the age of majority. But, however, the same was also dismissed by order, dated 28.09.2020 on the ground that the application has not been made within three years from the date of death of the father. Challenging the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment, the appellant preferred the Writ Petition.

3.The learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to be implemented strictly in compliance with the scheme in vogue and as the appellant's father died in the year 2016 and application was filed after three years already more than five years have lapsed, the Writ Petitioner cannot claim for appointment as a matter of right. Challenging the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition, the appellant is before this Court.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that initially, the application for compassionate appointment was filed on 10.10.2018 itself, which was rejected, as the appellant was a minor at that time and therefore, the second application was filed seeking compassionate appointment on 28.09.2020, but sill the second application also was rejected on the ground that the application was not made within three years. The learned Counsel further contended that the appellant has lost both his parents and his family is in penurious circumstances and the object of providing compassionate employment itself is only to bail out the deceased family from the penurious circumstances due to the sudden death of the employee and therefore, the order passed rejecting the claim is against the very intention of the scheme.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that any application for compassionate appointment can be considered only as per the scheme framed for providing compassionate appointment and since admittedly, the appellant was a minor at the time of death of the employee and the application filed seeking compassionate appointment was not within the period of three years as mandated under the Government Order, his application has rightly bee