Allowed

Bhaskar v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/20758/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment petition, the Court held that mere employment of family members in private sectors does not justify rejection without proof of financial support to the family. The impugned order setting aside the application was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment application is set aside. Respondents directed to consider the case on merits within four weeks.

Bhaskar Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.09.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.20758 of 2013

¶6

Bhaskar .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6. 3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram. 4.The District Educational Officer, Tindivanam. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 4^th respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in Mu.Mu.No.5442/A1/2018 dt.26.02.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits and grant such other further relief.

¶8

The petitioner's father died on 31.10.1998 in harness leaving behind his widow Prema, daughter Shanthi and three sons namely the petitioner, Pugalendhi and Manivannan. The petitioner's mother submitted an application on 23.05.2001 seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner and the same was forwarded by the Asst. Elementary Educational Officer, Marakanam Panchayat Union and

¶9

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

¶10

was returned to comply certain particulars. The petitioner resubmitted the application and the District Educational Officer, Villupuram returned the same by his letter dated 08.10.2001 directing the petitioner to clarify certain aspects and the petitioner clarified the doubts and sent the same on 29.10.2001. The application was kept pending as there was a ban from 2001 to 2006 on recruitment and finally, the petitioner's request was rejected on the ground that one of the petitioner's younger brother Pugalendhi is employed in a private company and another younger brother Manivannan is employed in a private school and therefore the family is not in a indigent circumstances and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek employment on compassionate ground. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted the application within a period of three years and the order was passed only after twelve years and that too, without taking into consideration whether the petitioner's brothers were supporting the family or not. The petitioner also relied on G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.07.1993. The petitioner therefore submitted that considering the fact that the application was filed within the period of three years and the family is in indigent circumstances and in the absence of any proof that the petitioner's brothers were supporting the family, the rejection order passed by the 4^th respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶12

The learned Additional Govt. Pleader reiterated the very same aspects made in the counter affidavit filed in support of the application and relied upon G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981 and submitted that if any one of the family member is employed in Govt. service, the other family member is not entitled to get employment on compassionate ground and that was considered by the authorities and therefore the petitioner request for compassionate appointment was rejected.

¶13

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Govt. Pleader. The respondents, without considering the G.O.Ms. No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.1993, passed the impugned order. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner's brothers were employed, that cannot be a ground to reject the case of the petitioner, in the absence of any proof that the petitioner's brothers were supporting the petitioner's family.

¶14

Admittedly, the application was made within time and the same was forwarded and details were called for from the petitioner and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's brothers were employed subsequently, without stating that such

¶15

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

¶16

persons were supporting the family.

¶17

In view of the above said circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar[cs.ii]
Dt/-10/10/2014
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
rgr
To
1.The Secretary to Government
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Villupuram.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Tindivanam.
1 CC To Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate SR NO.42634
1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 42486
W.P.No.20758 of 2013
sv[co]
gp/10/10

¶20

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

Bhaskar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Perumal Vs The Director of Town Panchayat

M. Rakkiannan Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

T.Ramaparamasivar, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

T.Manikandan, Vs Director of School Education

M.Balasubramanian, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Raghavendra Rao Vs The Director of Agriculture