Allowed

M. Kumar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC15 Nov 2011WP/15363/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose mother, a government sweeper, died while in service. The court quashed the lower authority's order rejecting the petitioner's claim due to his age at application, directing appointment as he was over 18 when the order was passed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.01.2011 is quashed; the first respondent is directed to provide compassionate appointment within 8 weeks if eligibility is confirmed.

M. Kumar Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.11.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARI PARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.No.15363 of 2011

¶6

M.Kumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. 2.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration, Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein and as stated in para -1 of this order.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.John Selvaraj For Respondents: Mr.V.Bharadhidasan for R1 Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.GP for R2 O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner-M.Kumar, seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the the order passed by the first respondent in Ma.A.9.Na.Ka.No.A8/4383/2006, dated 10.01.2011, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground basis.

¶12

The petitioner's mother, namely, Sussela, was employed as a Sweeper in the first respondent Corporation. She died on 01.05.2006, while she was in service. The petitioner made an application on 07.08.2006, seeking compassionate appointment. He could make application upto 01.5.2009, i.e., upto 3 years from the date of death of his mother. He was born on 10.07.1989. Therefore,

¶13

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

¶14

he would cross 18 years on 10.07.2007. While the facts stood thus, the first respondent passed an order dated 10.01.2011, rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that when he made an application, he did not complete 18 years of age. Proceeding dated 04.05.2010 of the Labour and Employment Department is relied on in this regard.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced proceedings dated 04.05.2010 referred to in the impugned order. Learned counsel has relied on Clause 5 of the said proceedings and the said Clause 5 is extracted hereunder:-

¶16

"5.,e;jepiyapy;. gzpapil kuzkile;j muR CHpahpd; thhpRjhUf;Ff; fUiz mog;gilapy; gzp epakdk; tH';fpl FWktaJ eph;zapg;gJ bjhlh;ghf fPH;f;fhQqk; bjspt[iufs; tH';fg;gLfpd;wd :-

¶17

(i) 23/08/2005?f;F Kd;dh;. fUiz mog;gilapy; gzpepakdk; nfhhp 3 Mz;L fhyf;bfLt[f;Fs; bgwg;gl;l tpz;zg;g';fs; 18 tajpid epiwt [ bgwhky; ,Ue;jhYk; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakdj;jpw;fhd Vida gpw jFjpfis epiwt[ bra;a[k; gl;rj;jpy; jFjpahdjhff; fUjg;gl ntz;Lk;/

¶18

(ii) 23/08/2005 Kjy; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzpepakdj;jpw;fhd FWk taJ 18 vd eph;zapf;fg;gl;ljhy;. muR foj vz;/66813-f;a{/ 1-91?3. bjhHpyhsh; kw;Wk; ntiytha;g;g[j;Jiw. ehs; 22/11/1991?,y; btspaplg;gl;l bjspt[iufs; ePf;fg;gl;litahff; fUjg;gl;L 23/08/2005?,y; btspaplg;gl;l bjspt[iufs; ePf;fg;gl;litahff; fUjg;gl;L. 23/08/2005?f;F gpd;dh; 18 taJ epuk;gpa thhpRjhuh; kl;Lnk fUiz mog;gilapy; gzpepakdk; bgwj;jFjpahdth; vdf; fUjg;gl ntz;Lk;

¶19

(iii) fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakd';fSf;F muR CHpah; ,we;J Kd;whz;ow;Fs;. tpz;zg;gjhuh; tpz;zg;gk; mspf;Fk; ehspidna fzf;fpy; bfhz;L. taJ kw;Wk; fy;tpj; jFjpfs; eph;zapf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/

¶20

In my view, the impugned order is contrary to the aforesaid proceedings dated 04.05.2010, of the Labour and Employment Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The proceedings of the

¶21

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

¶22

Government states that the persons seeking compassionate appointment should be above 18 years of age. Paras 5(ii) and (iii) have to be read that if the legal heir of the deceased Government servant is at 18 years of age before completion of 3 years from the date of death of the Government Servant, his claim could be considered. The petitioner could make an application upto three years from the date of death of his mother, as per the proceedings dated 04.05.2010. When the first respondent passed the order dated 10.01.2011, the petitioner was, admittedly, above 18 years of age. Therefore, the first respondent was not in correct in rejecting the request of the petitioner.

¶23

Further, the order of the first respondent also is not in line with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and Others ((2006) 9 SCC 195). Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶24

"5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State, in the instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13 years' old and the application was rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection, of the application he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been very well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting application.

¶25

6.As the widow had submitted the application in time, the authorities should have considered her application. As eleven years have passed she would have not be in a position to join the government service. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have been considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State could not point out any other circumstance, for which the appellant would be disentitled to be considered for appointment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondents authorities to consider the application of the appellant and give him appropriate appointment within a reasonable time at least within a period of three months. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs."

¶26

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

¶27

For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 10.01.2011, passed by the first respondent, is quashed. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible for compassionate appointment, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.

¶29

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar.
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar.
rkm
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration,
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
1 cc to Mr. John Selvaraj, Advocate, Sr. 70002
1 cc to Mr.V. Bharathidasan, Advocate, sr. 69831
W.P.No.15363 of 2011
DM (CO)
kk 30/11

¶30

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

M. Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiru.K.Srinivasan Vs the Secretary Regional

P.Subbaiyan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Selvaraj Vs the District Collector

E.Thasiyan Vs the Consevator of Forests

R. Thanigaivel Vs the District Education Officer

Ms. v.Santhi Siri, Vs the Pondicherry University