Disposed

R.Rajesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Oct 2024WP/6288/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of rejection of his compassionate appointment claim on limitation grounds after his father, a Plot Watcher, died in harness in 2012. The court found the mother's 2014 representation fell within the three-year period and rejected the limitation plea as inequitable.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.06.2014 and pass orders on merits within two months; no costs.

R.Rajesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

R.Rajesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort.St.George,

¶11

Chennai - 9.

¶12

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of the Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet,

¶13

Chennai - 15.

¶14

3.The District Forest Officer, Cuddalore Forest Division, Cuddalore. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Se.Mu.O.No.2474/2018/pa dated 22.09.2020 of the third respondent and quash the same with consequential direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment within the time frame.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶19

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Jenitha For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh, GA

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed for quashment of the order of the third respondent passed in Se.Mu.O.No.2474/2018/pa dated 22.09.2020 and a consequential direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment within the time frame as fixed by this Court.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶23

The father of the petitioner was working as Plot Watcher at Thiruthani Social Forestry Division. The petitioner's father died on 21.06.2012 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and his sister as his legal heirs. The petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 29.05.2014, within three years from the date of the death of his father. Since no action has been forthcoming from the authority concerned, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.20805 of 2019, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The said Writ Petition was disposed on 04.09.2019, directing

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶27

the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation on 07.11.2019 along with the copy of the order passed in the above Writ Petition. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 22.09.2020, stating that the representation has not been made within three years. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.06.2012 and the petitioner has made a representation as early as in the year 2014 itself, which is within the period of three years from the date of death of the petitioner's father. The mother of the petitioner has also sent a representation on 09.06.2014 seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. However, the third respondent failed to consider the indigent circumstances of the petitioner due to the death of his father, who is the sole breadwinner of the family, had passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that as alleged by the petitioner, the respondents did not receive any

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶33

application seeking compassionate appointment from the side of the petitioner before 12.12.2018. The petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2014 was for seeking only retirement benefits which was promptly complied by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent an application for compassionate appointment after a lapse of more than 6 years. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for claiming compassionate appointment.

¶34

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner's mother sought for compassionate appointment for the petitioner vide letter dated 09.06.2014. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the representation of the petitioner is beyond the three years period is not acceptable. Whatever may be the reason, merely rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation is not justified in the eye of law, as it is not in conformity with the principles of equity and natural justice. Hence, I feel it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders.

¶35

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.06.2014 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶39

vkr

¶40

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶41

04.10.2024

¶42

vkr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶43

¶44

1.The Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 9.

¶45

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of the Department, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

¶46

3.The District Forest Officer, Cuddalore Forest Division, Cuddalore.

¶47

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶48

vkr

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶52

W.P.No.6288 of 2022

¶53

04.10.2024

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Page 6 of 6

R.Rajesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Anandan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.Selvi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department

M.Sarojini Vs The District Collector

B.Devanathan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

K.C.Rajesh Vs Mr. Rajesh Lakhani, IAS

P.K.Palanisamy Vs the Deputy Registrar