The High Court, Madras allowed this writ appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company against a 2011 order directing compassionate appointment. The Court held that a 27-year lapse renders the application unviable and set aside the lower court's order on that ground.
The impugned order dated 10.12.2011 allowing the writ petition is set aside.
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.
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.3590 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.23052 of 2019
The Oriental Insurance Company, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Division Office-2, UTL Building, III Floor, No.8, Esplanade, Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs
1.P.Arun Gandhi
2.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Company Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the final order dated 10.12.2011 made in W.P.No.21098 of 2006.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thayaparan For R1 : Mr.S.Prabhu For R2 : Mr.K.Gunasekar
Page No.1/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 10.12.2011 made in W.P.No.21098 of 2006.
2.One Panneerselvam was working at the appellant's office and he died on 14.11.1996 suddenly while he was in service.
3.At the time of the death of the father of the first respondent herein who was the writ petitioner since he was a minor, no application was made to seek for compassionate appointment.
4.Subsequently only on 13.03.2006, application had been made to seek for compassionate appointment. Since the same has not been considered, the respondent/writ petitioner moved the Writ Court and filed the said writ petition in W.P.No.21098 of 2006 seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the appellant Department to consider the case of the
first respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
Page No.2/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
5.The said writ petition having been considered was allowed by the order of the learned Judge dated 10.12.2011 where the learned Judge has stated that it cannot be stated that the delay is attributable on the part of the son of the deceased employee because at the time of the death of the employee admittedly the legal heir i.e., son of the deceased employee was a minor. Therefore, after he attaining the majority he was able to give such an application seeking for compassionate appointment only in the year 2006. Therefore that has been mainly taken into account by the learned Judge and ultimately, the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, this writ appeal has been directed.
6.However, Mr.A.Thayaparan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that the compassionate appointment scheme which was in vogue till 2002 itself has been modified and under the said modification which has been issued on 23.07.2002, the scheme for grant of monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate ground appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee has been brought in and has been executed.
Page No.3/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
7.Therefore, he would submit that well prior to the application that has been made by the first respondent herein to seek for compassionate appointment in 2006, the scheme itself has been modified into a monetary compensation instead of compassionate appointment with effect from 23.07.2002. Hence, the question of considering his application even otherwise on merits for compassionate appointment did not arise at the time.
8.However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submit that this position has not been brought to the notice of the learned Judge who dealt with the writ petition.
9.We have heard Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent who would submit that, since the first respondent was a minor at the time his father died in 1996, there was no chance of him to made any application being a minor, therefore only after he attains the majority, he was able to make an application in the year 2006. Therefore, merely because the scheme has been modified in the year 2002 in between, the said Scheme that has been modified in the year 2002 cannot be taken into account because as on date of the death of the
Page No.4/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
employee i.e., in the year 1996 what was the Rule that was prevailing shall alone be taken into account.
10.We have considered the said rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
11.Insofar as making an application seeking compassionate appointment, the law is well settled that the maximum period is three years. Even though such a fixation has not been made in the scheme formulated by the appellant Department, it is a settled proposition that within three years period from the date of death of an employee, such an application seeking appointment should have been made.
12.The reason being for fixing such a limitation is because the
very compassionate appointment scheme itself is only to bail out the family which is in penurious circumstances and if that circumstances was not prevailing for three years beyond which there is no scope for considering any compassionate appointment.
Page No.5/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
13.In the present scheme, even though such a strict limitation has
not been prescribed it is to be noted that on 23.07.2002 the scheme itself has been modified into a monetary compensation scheme and after three years of that modification only i.e., in the year 2006 application seeking compassionate appointment has been made by the first respondent.
14.Therefore, at no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the said application submitted in the year 2006 should be get back to 1996.
15.The reason being that in 1996 admittedly the first respondent was minor and therefore, there was no chance of considering his application had it been filed even in the year 1996.
16.Therefore, if at all the respondent is entitled to seek for monetary compensation under the modified scheme with effect from 23.07.2002, that can be pursued but that issue does not arise because the death occurred for the employee in the year 1996 and 27 long years have gone. Therefore, at this juncture whether such kind of persuasion is possible is a question for which we do no want to express our mind and it
is for the respondent and the appellant Department to decide mutually.
Page No.6/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
17.Insofar as the merits of the case seeking compassionate appointment and a direction has been given to that effect by the learned Judge through the impugned order is concerned, we feel that for the reason stated above, the said order would not stand in the legal scrutiny. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the said order is liable to be interfered with.
18.In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ appeal
is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No cse
To
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Company Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
Page No.7/8
W.A.No.3590 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR., J. and K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
cse
Writ Appeal No.3590 of 2019
09.08.2023
Page No.8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the count of 27 years is relevant when determining the eligibility for compassionate appointment after a death in 1996 given a 2002 scheme modification.
Whether the High Court below correctly allowed the writ petition directing the appellant to consider the case for compassionate appointment despite the lapse of time.
Whether the limitation period for compassionate appointment continues to be calculated from the date of death or the date of scheme modification.
The Oriental Insurance Company
P.Arun Gandhi
Union of India
R.Suresh Kumar
K.Kumares Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
