Writ petition cherishing to set aside an order rejecting compassionate appointment for minor applicant. Court held rejection based on age at death was wrong, requiring appointment time, and allowed petition.
Impugned order dated 06.03.2024 set aside; 1st respondent directed to reconsider and pass orders afresh within four 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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD)No.14806 of 2024
K.Arun .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Karambakudi, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2455/2023/Pa2 (Development) dated 06.03.2024 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner under the compassionate ground
Page No.1 of 6
due to death of his father Late.Krishnamoorthy.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader for R1
: Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader for R2
O R D E R
Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 2 nd respondent.
2 . The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order
dated 06.03.2024 through which the petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment was rejected and consequently to direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner under the compassionate ground.
Page No.2 of 6
3. The petitioner's father was working as a Driver under the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's father died on 17.09.2014 while he was in service. Hence, the petitioner's elder sister Pavithra sent an application on 28.09.2016 seeking for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time. The same was rejected on 20.12.2016 stating that she did not have the required age limit. At that time, the petitioner was also a minor. Consequently, the petitioner's sister had given several representations on 11.06.2018, 02.07.2018 & 02.07.2019. But no orders was passed by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, she gave no objection and consent for giving appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, after attaining majority, the petitioner has filed another application on 29.01.2024 seeking appointment for himself. But the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 06.03.2024 on the ground that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father.
4. The fact that the petitioner was minor at the time when his
father died is not in dispute. The rule only prescribed that at the time when the appointment order was made under the compassionate
Page No.3 of 6
appointment scheme, the legal heir should not be below 18 years. Hence, the rule does not contemplate a condition that at the time of application itself, the legal heir of the deceased should have attained majority. So, it is wrong on the part of the respondents to reject the application otherwise on the wrong notion that the petitioner ought to have completed 18 years at the time of filing the very application itself. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 is set aside. The 1 st respondent is directed to reconsider and pass orders afresh within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.
19.07.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PJL
Page No.4 of 6
To
Page No.5 of 6
R.N.MANJULA, J.
PJL
W.P.(MD)No.14806 of 2024
19.07.2024
Page No.6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the requirement for compassionate appointment mandates that the applicant must have attained majority at the time of the father's death or merely at the time of the appointment order?
Whether rejecting an application for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the applicant was a minor at the time of the deceased servant's death is legally sustainable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Arun
District Collector, Pudukkottai
Block Development Officer, Karambakudi
R.N. MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
