Writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment for petitioner whose father died in service. Court found prior rejection was technical, not on merits, and directed consideration on merits within eight weeks.
Directing respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on merits within eight 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.17531 of 2012
M.Deepa ... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the impugned order Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E.9/52323/2007 dated 25.09.2008 issued by the first respondent and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground basis.
For Petitioner : M/s.N.Beulah John Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj, Special Govt.Pleader for R2. Mr.Kesavan for R1
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the impugned order Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E.9/52323/2007 dated 25.09.2008 issued by the first respondent and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground basis.
daughters and one son as his legal heirs. Immediately after the death of the petitioner's father her mother gave an application for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. This was not considered in view of the ban imposed by the Government on recruitment in Government services. Finally it was considered after lifting the ban in the year 2006 and an order was issued rejecting her claim stating by then, she was 49 years old. Thereafter, it appears on 14.03.2006 one of the daughters namely the petitioner herein had applied for compassionate appointment. However, the same came to be rejected vide proceedings of the first respondent dated 25.09.2009 on the ground that originally her mother had applied for compassionate appointment and the same was rejected stating only one member of a family can apply for appointment on compassionate grounds and there cannot be consideration of compassionate appointment for the second time for the same family. The said impugned order is put to challenge in the present writ petition.
consideration of the claim made by the petitioner or by her mother on merits. Both her mother's petition as well as present petitioner's petition for compassionate appointment have been dismissed only on the technical ground that the petitioner's mother had become 49 years old and the petitioner's petition cannot be considered for the second time in the same family. In view of the rejection of petitioner's mother request in the year 2006, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits at all, particularly in view of the admitted fact that originally the application for compassionate appointment was made within three years from the date of the deceased employee and the previous authority ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner on merits with reference to the proceedings of the scheme for compassionate appointment and cannot reject the same on certain technical grounds.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dpq
To
+1cc to Mr.N.Beulah John Selvaraj, Advocate SR.No.30569 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.30704
W.P.No.17531 of 2012
SG(CO)
GN(11/05/2018)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second member of a family can apply for compassionate appointment after the first member's claim is rejected on technical grounds?
M.Deepa
Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Secretary to Government Municipal Administration
V.Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
