C.Satheesh Vs The Director General of Police

Prayer : The writ petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of this order vide Na.Ka.No. A2 (2) 038786 / 2012, dated 10.08.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent herein to quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent herein to quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent herein to appoint the petitioner herein to any post either in police department or any other department on the basis of the petitioners representation dated 07.05.2021.

¶15

__________Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 904 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Dalit Tiger For Respondent(s): Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri, Govt. Advocate for R.1 to R.3.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging the rejection of his request for compassionate appointed by order of the 2 nd respondent dated 10.08.2023 and seeking a direction to

¶21

the 2 nd respondent to appoint him in any post either in the police department or other department on the basis of his representation dated 07.05.2021, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

2. The shorts facts are as follows:-

¶23

2.1. The petitioner’s father, namely Mr. M. Chakkaravarthy, was a

¶24

Sub-Inspector of Police. On 05.09.2004, while he was proceeding to the K.3, Police Station, Thiruvalam, he met with an accident. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to CMC Hospital, Vellore, for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries on 06.09.2004.

¶25

2.2. On 06.02.2007, the petitioner’s late mother, Mrs.Aneetha made a representation to the District Superintendent of Police, Vellore, the 2 nd

¶26

__________Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 904 of 2023

¶29

respondent seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner. At that

¶30

point in time, the petitioner was studying in 10 th standard. On 22.04.2007,

¶31

the 2 nd respondent had rejected the request made by the petitioner’s late mother on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the minimum age of 18 years. However, the 2nd respondent offered employment to the petitioner’s mother. As the petitioner’s mother knew only the Marathi language and was suffering from a high level of diabetes, she requested that the employment be given to the petitioner and in this regard once again she made a representation on 30.08.2007. Thereafter, due to her prolonged illness, the petitioner’s mother passed away on 08.07.2011. After her death, the petitioner is taking care of his siblings.

¶32

2.3. On 30.08.2012, after completing his 10 + 2 course at the age of 22, the petitioner had made a representation before the 2 nd respondent seeking compassionate appointment. However, the request made by the petitioner has been rejected by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 10.08.2013. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

3. The 2 nd respondent had filed a counter affidavit, inter alia

¶34

contending that the petitioner’s request was rejected in view of the

¶35

__________Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 904 of 2023

¶38

prevailing Government Order, which specifies that an application for compassionate appointment has to be made within a period of three years from the date of death of the Government servant.

¶39

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶40

5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s mother had initially filed a representation seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner well within the prescribed limitation period of three years. However, at that time, the petitioner was a minor. Thereafter, immediately upon attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualifications for compassionate appointment, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment.

¶41

6. Therefore, considering the fact that the initial application seeking compassionate appointment has been made well within the prescribed limitation period and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is now fully qualified for compassionate appointment, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 10.08.2013 is set aside. The 2 nd respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner in any post either in the police

¶42

__________Page 4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 904 of 2023

¶45

department or other department on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 07.05.2021.

¶46

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶47

12-12-2025