Writ appeal against denial of compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased Government servant. The Court affirmed the single Judge's rejection based on laches and the absence of continuing indigency, noting the appellant was a BBA graduate.
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.(MD) No.721 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE and JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A.(MD).No.721 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD).No.4203 of 2018
J.Rajasekara Pandian .. Appellant
Vs.
_________Page 1 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.721 of 2018
4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Public Distribution System (PDS), Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.01.2013 passed in W.P.(MD)No.16004 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SESHASAYEE. J.)
This appeal is preferred challenging the order of learned single Judge in W.P. (MD)No.16004 of 2013.
2.The issue relating to denial of compassionate appointment to the son of the Government servant, who died in harness. The learned single Judge rejected the same on the ground essentially of laches and also added that inasmuch as
_________Page 2 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.721 of 2018
compassionate appointments are provided as an exception to Rule of equality under Article 16 essentially to secure the family of the deceased Government servant from destitution and indigency. The indingency contemplated must be immediate and imminent and cannot be carry forward in time infinitely.
3.The brief facts are on 04.02.2002, one Jeganathan, a Government servant working in the relevant time as a driver in the office of the third respondent had passed away. His widow submitted an application dated 10.07.2002, for compassionate appointment for her daughter. However, her daughter was soon married and hence, she preferred another application on behalf of the present appellant. This application was made on 02.11.2007 and it came to be rejected on 31.08.2010. A little over three years thereafter on 25.09.2013, the appellant challenge the order dated 31.08.2010 in W.P.(MD).No.16004 of 2013. As earlier outlined, this came to be rejected for reasons already indicated above. This order is now under challenge.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though an application was given as early as on 02.11.2007, the authorities took merely
_________Page 3 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.721 of 2018
three years to take their decision on the issue and that cannot be counted against the appellant.
5.Interjecting the said argument, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the appellant was a BBA graduate, to say that he was facing indigency for 22 years now is a difficult preposition to believe.
6.The rival submissions are weighed and this Court has little hesitation in subscribing to the views expressed by the learned single Judge. What is not specifically dealt with in the learned single Judge order is that the qualification of the appellant on which the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance but it strengthen his case.
7.To say a BBA graduate could not seek profitable employment for 22 years does not seem to project the appellant’s case positively. There is nothing to indicate that the family ever was in a state of indigency on the demise of the Government servant, and even if any such indigency at all was there, that it continues till date. No merit in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is accordingly
_________Page 4 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.721 of 2018
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 29.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
akv
To
Chennai -9.
_________Page 5 of 6
W.A.(MD) No.721 of 2018
N. SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.
akv
W.A.(MD) No.721 of 2018
29.04.2024
_________Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal against denial of compassionate appointment should be allowed despite the delay in challenging the rejection order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Rajasekara Pandian
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai Region
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Public Distribution System (PDS), Karaikudi
N. Seshasayee
P. Vadamalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
