Writ petition by daughter-in-law challenging rejection of compassionate appointment request after death of father-in-law ten years ago. Court held it rejected at admission stage citing delay and family disputes.
Writ petition dismissed in the admission stage itself. No costs.
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.
WP.No.26078/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
WP.No.26078/2019 & WMP.No.25451/2019
Mrs.Sarojinidevi .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Union of India
represented by the Chairman
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan
New Delhi, New Delhi 110 023.
2.The General Manager
Southern Railway
Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
3.The Divisional Personal Officer
Divisional Office, Confidential section
Southern Railway, Madurai. .. Respondents
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 3rd respondent in No.U/P353/OA./1247/14 dated 19.07.2016 on the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 01.10.2018 made in OA.No.310/00565/2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja
1/10
WP.No.26078/2019
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]
2/10
WP.No.26078/2019
withdrawn his application on the ground that he got employment in abroad.
3/10
WP.No.26078/2019
OA.No.565/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and it was entertained and notices were ordered.
been averred among other things that the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein, viz., Thiru S.G.Srinivasarengan, who is the elder son of the deceased V.S.Gopinathan, by letter dated 11.08.2009 had objected for giving employment on compassionate ground to the husband of the petitioner herein and subsequently, vide letter dated 21.03.2011, he had consented for offering employment to his younger brother/husband of the petitioner herein as he got an offer of appointment abroad and accordingly, the case of the petitioner's husband was considered and since he was found medically unfit, his claim was not considered and after his demise, his wife/petitioner herein, has submitted a representation dated 05.08.2013 seeking compassionate ground appointment in her
favour and initially it was rejected and challenging the same, she filed O.A.No.1247/2014 wherein the Tribunal had set aside the impugned two
proceedings with a further direction, directing the official respondents therein to consider her claim as a near relative and dispose of her representation seeking compassionate ground appointment on merits and in accordance with law and accordingly, it was considered and rejected. The 3rd respondent, on the legal plea, has placed reliance upon the
4/10
WP.No.26078/2019
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 23.04.2012 in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. SHASHANK GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER , and took a stand that appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is not another source of recruitment and the only consideration is indigent circumstances of the family and in the light of the fact that the father-in-law of the petitioner had died in the year 2003 and the petitioner herself had submitted a representation / application only during the year 2013, nearly after a lapse of ten years, it cannot be said that she continues to be under indigent circumstances and prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
(8)The Tribunal has taken into consideration, the facts and circumstances as well as the rival submissions and found that subsequently, the mother-inlaw of the petitioner herein also took a contra stand in respect of nomination of her daughter-in-law for seeking appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, it is not for the Tribunal, to enter into the family dispute as to whether the mother-in-law was justified in withdrawing her earlier letter seeking compassionate ground appointment for her daughter-in-law / petitioner herein and proposing the same now for her elder son. The Tribunal, having noted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the 3rd respondent for rejecting the petitioner's request, dismissed OA.No.565/2017 vide impugned order
5/10
WP.No.26078/2019
dated 01.10.2018 and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ petition is filed.
(9)Mr.K.Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner would forcefully submit that in the light of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, in OA.No.1247/2014, the petitioner being the daughter-in-law of [late] Thiru. V.S.Gopinathan, is to be considered as near relative and also pointed out the fact that her husband was initially considered to be appointed on compassionate grounds and later on, found to be unfit on medical grounds and he has also subsequently died and as such, her family is also left in lurch and would also give an undertaking that in the event of the petitioner being given appointment on compassionate ground, she would take care of her mother-in-law also and hence, prays for interference.
placed reliance upon the judgment reported in CDJ 2016 CH HC 119 [DULIYA BAI YADAV VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS] as well as the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.02.2012 [SUNITA MANN V. DELHI POLICE THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER] .
6/10
WP.No.26078/2019
(12)Though the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law of late Thiru V.S.Gopinathan, can be considered as a near relative, the fact remains that the immediate person who would be affected is the widow, viz., the wife of late Thiru V.S.Gopinathan and though the husband of the petitioner was initially nominated to get employment on compassionate ground, he was found to be unfit on medical grounds and unfortunately, he breathed his last. Thereafter, the elder son of late Thiru V.S.Gopinathan, viz., Thiru.S.G.Srinivasarengan, made a claim and subsequently, he withdrew his candidature on account of the fact that he got employment in abroad. The mother-in-law of the petitioner had submitted her application seeking compassionate ground appointment for her daughter-in-law/petitioner herein on 21.10.2013 nearly after 10 years after the demise of her husband and it was initially rejected and subsequently, the impugned orders were set aside by the Tribunal in OA.No.1247/2014 with a further direction to consider the petitioner's claim
on merits and in accordance with law and give a disposal and accordingly, vide impugned order dated 19.07.2016, it came to be rejected.
7/10
WP.No.26078/2019
8/10
WP.No.26078/2019
(17)In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed in the admission stage
itself. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
also closed.
[MSNJ] [NSSJ]
09.09.2019
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
AP
To
1.The Chairman
Union of India
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan
New Delhi, New Delhi 110 023.
9/10
WP.No.26078/2019
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
AP
WP.No.26078/2019
09.09.2019
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a daughter-in-law can be given appointment on compassionate grounds killing her father-in-law ten years ago when a widow and elder son are present.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Whether complaint of delay and family dispute precludes grant of appointment on compassionate grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Shashank GoswamiApplied¶37
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. SHASHANK GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER
Duliya Bai Yadav v. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶45
CDJ 2016 CH HC 119 [DULIYA BAI YADAV VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS]
Sunita Mann v. Delhi PoliceReferred¶45
[SUNITA MANN V. DELHI POLICE THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE...]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Sarojinidevi
The Union of India through Chairman, Railway Board
The General Manager, Southern Railway
The Divisional Personal Officer
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
N.SESHASAYEE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
