The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner following his father's death. The court rejected the plea, citing an admitted five-year delay in applying and noting the petitioner was 26 years old, stating such relief would invite further litigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 08.07.2015 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P(MD)No.19615 of 2014
Andiappan ..Petitioner
Vs
The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 05.09.2014 for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father Avudayappan within a reasonable time and grant such other further relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ayhangara Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.D. Muruganandam Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed directing the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 05.09.2014 for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father Avudayappan within a reasonable time and grant such other further relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard both sides.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father died on 10.03.2009 and that he made an application on 10.01.2014 for compassionate appointment. Since the same was not considered, he made a detailed representation on 05.09.2014 to consider the same for compassionate appointment. Since the same not considered and disposed of, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.
4.It is an admitted case that on the date of death of his father, the petitioner was studying in College and he stated that he was 21 years. In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that his present age is 26 years.
5.The Honourable Supreme Court, in a decision Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2011 (3) LLN 37 (SC) has held as follows:
“20. Thus while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mine:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of
2
Rules of Regulations issued by the Government or a Public Authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make Compassionate Appointment dehors the Scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz., Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III & IV posts.”
7.In these circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner, if granted, would amount to allowing him to approach this Court again by way of another round of litigation. Hence, this Court does not want him to do so and the petitioner is not at all entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.
8.The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Per.Admin)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
+1cc to Special Government Pleader in Sr No.37971/15
W.P(MD)No.19615 of 2014 08.07.2015
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vs RJ 28.07.2015 2P/3C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds given the delay of five years from the date of the father's death.
Whether the writ petition has sufficient merit to warrant appellate intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and othersExplained¶15
2011 (3) LLN 37 (SC)
Andiappan
The District Collector, Pudukkottai District
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
