Dismissed

Geetha v. the Secretary

Madras HC2 Jan 2017WP(MD)/21744/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment due to significant delay. The High Court, upholding the rejection, held that compassionate appointments require timely applications. Following the cited Supreme Court precedent, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

Geetha Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.01.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.21744 of 2016

Geetha

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Secretary, Revenue Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector, Madurai District. Madurai-625 020. 3. The Personal Assistant (General), to the District Collector, Madurai District Collector Office, Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent vide proceeding in Na.Ka.No.27415/16/G1 dated 30.06.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to give employment to the petitioner under compassionate appointment scheme.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.27415/16G1, vide which, the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has applied for the same after a lapse of 17 years. The petitioner also sought a direction to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondents to give her employment under compassionate appointment scheme.

¶15

¶16

It is the admitted case that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1998 and the mother of the petitioner is said to have sent an application for employment on compassionate ground to the brother of the petitioner in the year 1999 itself and the said application was rejected, stating that he was aged about only 11 years. In the meantime, the petitioner, who is one of the children of the deceased, applied for employment on compassionate scheme, as she had come out successful in her 10th standard in the year 2002 apart from completion of Date Entry Operation Course and her request has been rejected vide order impugned herein.

¶17

The 3rd respondent has filed a counter, in which he has not disputed the fact of employment of the petitioner's father and his death; that the petitioner's father died on 17.10.1998 and the application of the petitioner is dated 27.06.2016, which has not been submitted within three years from the date of the petitioner attaining majority, as the petitioner is aged about 31 years as on date. It is the contention of the 3rd respondent that though the petitioner's mother had made an application on 27.09.1999, seeking appointment to the brother of the petitioner, the application was not considered, as he was only 10 years old at that time; that the petitioner's mother made several grievance petitions, which were all not within the ambit of the Government Orders in respect of compassionate appointment and therefore, the petitioner's plea cannot be accepted after 18 long years after the demise of her father / employee.

¶18

From the records, it appears that the application has been made only in the year 2016 by the petitioner and that there is an order of rejection by the authorities concerned, which is impugned herein. Admittedly, there is a delay in seeking compassionate appointment and the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected the request.

¶19

At this juncture, it is relevant to point out the Paragraph No.20 of the decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209, Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

¶20

"20.Thus while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:

¶21

(i)Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.

¶22

¶23

(ii)An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(iv)Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants 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 and IV posts."

¶26

In view of the above station position, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (WRITS)

¶29

/True copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

To:

¶32

The Secretary, Revenue Department, St.George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector, Madurai District. Madurai-625 020. 3. The Personal Assistant (General), to the District Collector, Madurai District Collector Office, Madurai-625 020. +1 CC to M/s.R.KARUNANIDHI, Advocate, SR No. 177 AR

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PSM/RR-BS/02.02.2017/3P/5C

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.21744 of 2016 02.01.2017

Geetha v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.S.S.India Roofing Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Mrf Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer

B.Nirmala, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

K. Padmanathan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Anbarasan, S/O.R.Palaram Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Karuppasamy, Vs the District Collector