Petitioner sought compassionate appointment for his father's death. Court held impugned order sustainable as petitioner was a minor then but directed authorities to consider his application now that he turned 18 without further age/time bar.
Writ petition disposed; respondents directed to consider compassion appointment application within 8 weeks.
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: 25.01.2017
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESHKUMAR
Writ Petition (MD) No.16993 of 2013
S.Hari Vasanth
.. Petitioner
Vs.
St.George Kottai, Chennai – 5.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of impugned order gK.m4/47254/2010, dated 28.12.2010 of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to consider the representation dated 21.04.2008 and appoint the petitioner in the Government Department on the basis of compassionate ground.
For Petitioner ... Mr.C.S.Ravichandran
For Respondents ... Mr.V.Muruganantham
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certioriarified Mandamus to call for the records in gK.m4/47254/2010, dated 28.12.2010 of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the second respondent to consider the representation dated 21.04.2008 and appoint the petitioner in the Government Department on the basis of compassionate ground.
2.The facts of the case is that the petitioner's father was working as night watchman at the respondent Department at Musiri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taluk office. He died on 30.12.2007 in harness, with the result, the family of the petitioner become in penurious condition.
2
According to the petitioner, his mother, on 21.04.2008, has given a petition to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment. Since the same was not considered, again the petitioner's mother gave application seeking compassionate appointment on 26.01.2010 to her son, i.e. the petitioner herein. The said request made by the mother of the petitioner, dated 26.01.2010 was considered by the second respondent and thereafter, he has passed the present impugned order, dated 28.12.201,0 whereby the request, made on behalf of the petitioner by his mother, has been turned down. In the impugned order, the second respondent has stated that since the petitioner was under 18 years of age and those who did not get the majority i.e. completion of 18 years would not be entitled for Government job, even on compassionate ground and therefore, the request of the petitioner's mother to give a job to the petitioner on compassionate ground, cannot be considered, as the petitioner has not completed 18 years of age. Therefore, the same was rejected. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.12.2010, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.Heard both sides.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's date of birth is 19.12.1994. At the time of the death of his father, i.e. on 30.12.2007, the petitioner was only 13 years old. Therefore, naturally, when the application was made on his behalf by his mother, the petitioner was minor. Assuming that the petitioner is a minor and therefore, the petitioner would not be given a Government job even on compassionate ground, atleast, the petitioner on attaining the majority such a job could have been given to the petitioner, as the petitioner has attained the majority on 18.12.2012. Therefore, continues rejection on the part of the respondents for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner is bad in law and therefore, he wants interference of this Court.
5.However, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, by relying upon the counter affidavit, would submit that it is an admitted case that the petitioner was only minor at the time of making application as well as the consideration made by the respondents for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The latest application made on behalf of the petitioner through his mother, dated 26.01.2010 was considered and the impugned order was passed on 28.12.2010. Even at the time of passing the impugned order, since the petitioner has not attained the majority, as he completes 18 years only subsequently i.e. on 18.12.2012, there is every justification on the part of the second respondent to pass the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, it requires no interference from this Court.
6.This Court has considered the said rival submissions made
3
by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon paragraph No.6 of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 10.12.2014, which reads as under:“6.Nkw;gb jpUj;jk ; ntspapl;l gpd;dh ;> 23.08.2005 Kjy; 03.05.2010 tiu cs;s ,ilg;gl ;l fhyq;fspy; tpz;zg;g ehspy; 18 taJ G+h;j ;jp Mfhky; fUiz mbg;gilapy; gzp epakdk; Nfhhp fhj;jpUg;gth;fSf;Fk ; f Po ;f ;fz ;lthW ghpr Pypf ;fyhk; vdTk; njspTiufs; toq;fp Miz ntspaplg;gLfpwJ.-
“23.08.2005 Kjy; 03.05.2010 tiu fUiz mbg;gilapy; gzp epakdk; Ntz;b tpz;zg ;gk ; mspj;jth;fs ; fUiz mbg;gilapyhd gzp epakdj;jpw;fhd FWk taJj; jFjp jtpu> midj;jJ gpw jFjpfis gzpNfhhpa tpz;zg ;g ehspYk;> FWk taJj; jFjp kl;Lk ; (18 Mz;Lfs; epiwT) epakd ehspYk; epiwT nra;jpUe;jhy ; NghJkhdjhf fUjg;gl Ntz;Lk ;.”
8.Therefore, he submits that whatever be the reason for rejection, if a person seeks compassionate appointment, who is the only bread winner of the deceased Government servant family and completed the age of 18, at the time of grant of job, certainly there could be no further impediment for giving compassionate appointment to such a person of the family, who is the legal heir of the deceased Government servant and the impart of the said Government Order especially at paragraph No.6 of the Government Order would only reiterate this position. Since the petitioner has attained the majority on 18.12.2012, atleast from that date he could have been offerred the post by way of compassionate appointment, even the same has not been done. Therefore, the respondents can be directed to consider the case of the petitioner atleast from his attainment of majority.
9.So far as the impugned order is concerned, as it has been rightly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader even at the time of considering the case of the petitioner, pursuant to the application submitted by his mother and even at the time of passing the impugned order on 28.12.2010, the petitioner has not attained the majority. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the said impugned order rejecting the request made on behalf of the petitioner, because no one can be expected to be given a Government job when he or she is under the age of 18.
10.However, not only on the basis of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 10.12.2014, referred to above, but on the basis of series of Government Orders and policy decisions taken from time to time, the Compassionate appointments are provided, if the application is submitted from the legal heir, within a period of three years from the date of death of the Government servant. Here in this case, no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ doubt, the application was submitted in time by the mother of the petitioner and the second application also was submitted. No
4
doubt, at the time of passing the impugned order, the petitioner might not have completed 18 years and attained majority, however, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner has attained the majority on 18.12.2012, there could be no further reasons on the part of the respondents, to deny, continuously, the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the deceased Government servant.
11.This Court has repeatedly held that making the compassionate appointment itself is against all norms of service regulations and only by relaxing the age, qualification and other aspects, these compassionate appointments are given in order to tide over the situation, where the indigenous circumstances prevail by virtue of the sudden death of the Government servants. Such a relaxation in age may be in the upper age limit, but not in the lower age limit. Therefore, at any rate, since the petitioner has completed 18 years in the year 2012 itself, the case of the petitioner could have been considered by the respondents. However, in view of the impugned order having been passed in the year 2010 and the same has been challenged before this Court in the present writ petition and for all these years, the writ petition is pending before this Court, probably the respondents would not have considered the said aspect.
12.In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent can be sustained for the reason that at the time of passing the impugned order, the petitioner has not attained the age of majority, however that will not preclude the respondents from considering subsequently the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
13.Resultantly, the following order is passed in this writ petition:-
(i)The impugned order need not be quashed, since, in the said order, the application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground of requirement of minimum age of 18 years for the petitioner.
(ii)Since the petitioner has completed 18 years of age and attained the majority as early as on 18.12.2012, the respondents can very well now consider the request of the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment.
In this regard, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the second respondent seeking compassionate appointment to him and once such application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall not be rejected for any other ground such as beyond the three years period etc. and the same shall be considered in the light of the policy envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.155, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Labour and Employment Department, dated 10.12.2014 and pass an order by taking pragmatic view and also considering the indigent circumstances of the family of the petitioner for giving
5
compassionate appointment. The needful, as directed above, shall be done by the second respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such a representation from the petitioner.
14.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(C)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, St.George Kottai, Chennai – 5. 2.The District Collector, Collectorate campus, Trichy. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Campus, Musiri (TK), Trichy. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No:4477 +1cc to Mr.C.S.Ravichandran, Advocate, SR.No:4582 rj2 AE/GT/07.03.2017/5P/6C W.P.(MD)No.16993 of 2013 25.01.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting compassionate appointment can be quashed given the petitioner was a minor.
Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment after attaining majority.
Whether a fresh application for compassionate appointment is immune from age and time-bar objections.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Hari Vasanth
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
R.Sureshkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
