IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 08.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.1587 of 2014

K.Muniammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chairman,

Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai 600 001.

2. The Deputy Chairman,

Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai 600 001.

3. Traffic Department,

Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai 600 001.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari

filed Mandamus to call for the records of the second

respondent relating to the impugned proceeding in

No.ICM3/16497/2007/S dated 05.12.2007 and quash the same and

consequently direct the first and second respondents to pay

the compensation amount in lieu of compassionate employment in

view of the proceedings in Memo No.350/2000-A13 dated

20.06.2001, issued by the third respondent and pass orders.

For petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

For respondents : Mr.K.Arun Pradeesh for Port Trust

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings dated 05.12.2007 and direct the first and second

respondents to pay the compensation amount in lieu of

compassionate employment in view of the proceedings in Memo

No.350/2000-A13 dated 20.06.2001, issued by the third

respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief:

The petitioner's husband was working as Mazdoor in

Chennai Port Trust and he died on 10.06.1991. Her son

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Arunachalam gave representation dated 19.09.1991 seeking

compassionate appointment and the petitioner has also given

consent for the same. But, the application was not considered

till 1998 for providing compassionate appointment.

2.1. Further, it was informed by the respondents that as

per notification of the Traffic Department of Chennai Port

Trust dated 20.06.2001, instead of getting job, the persons,

who are in the waiting list in the Madras Dock Labour Board,

can avail compensation upto Rs.1,20,000/-. According to the

petitioner, her son's name finds place in the waiting list.

However, on 05.12.2007, the second respondent had rejected her

claim, stating that " the petitioner is aged about 48 years

and hence, she is not eligible for compensation amount and his

son is also not eligible for any compensation, since his claim

is less than one year as on 31.12.2000, from the date of his

application dated 29.05.2000". According to the petitioner,

the reasons stated by the respondents are unsustainable. Her

son applied for compassionate job as early as on 19.09.1991

itself and the respondents assigned DR No.270/1992 also. Again

the petitioner gave representation to the respondents on

10.12.2007 to consider her claim for payment of compensation

in lieu of compassionate appointment. But it was not

considered. Hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Port

Trust submitted that the petitioner has made application on

20.08.1992 seeking to provide appointment to her son

K.Arunachalam on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, her son

gave a letter dated 18.03.1998, stating that he did not want

employment and recommended to give employment to his mother.

Again on 29.05.2000, he gave another application to reconsider

his application and sought to provide employment on

compassionate ground to him and also opted to receive cash

compensation in lieu of employment. The Port Trust had

constituted a Committee to review the claims made by the

dependants of the deceased employees for payment of

compensation in lieu of employment, as per clause 29 of the

Merger Settlement dated 25.05.2001. During August 2007, the

petitioner had submitted representation seeking compassionate

appointment.

4. According to the respondents, as per the Committee's

report, it is clearly stated