Muthusaranya, Vs the Superintendent of Police

To issue a writ or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the respondent made in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No.G6/5296/46/2018 dated 26.02.2018 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondent to provide appointment to the petitioner under the compassionate ground in a suitable post within a stipulated time and pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper with the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.13838 of 2018

¶18

PRAYER in WMP:

¶19

To pass an order of stay staying the operation of the impugned order of the respondent made in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G6/5296/46/2018 dated 26.02.2018 pending disposal of the above writ petition and thus render justice.

¶20

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Chinna Maruthu, Advocate For Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Advocate

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Heard.

¶25

In this writ petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26.02.2018, issued by the Respondent, whereby her request for compassionate appointment was rejected. The claim arises from the death of her father, who was serving as a Head Constable and passed away on 16.12.2008. At the time of his death, he was survived by his wife, his son Ashok Kumar, and the Petitioner. The Petitioner, being only 15 years old

¶26

at that time, was a minor. Subsequently, she submitted a representation

¶27

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

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.13838 of 2018

¶30

seeking compassionate appointment. However, when no response was received, she sought information through the Public Information Officer attached to the Respondent’s office. Eventually, through the impugned communication dated 26.02.2018, she was informed as follows:

¶31

“kDjhuh; mtuJ kfSf;F fUiz mbg;gilapy; gzpepakdk; Nfhhpa 13.10.2017 ehspl;l kD 17.10.2017 md;W ngwg;gl;Ls;sJ. murhiz vz;.560 njhopyhsh; kw;Wk; Ntiytha;g;Gj; Jiw> ehs;: 03.08.1977-d; gb> muRg;gzpahsh; xUth; kuzkile;j 3 Mz;LfSf;Fs; fUiz mbg;gilapy; gzpepakdk; Ntz;b tpz;zg;gpf;f Ntz;Lk;. kDjhuh; mtuJ fzth; 16.12.2008 md;W kuzkile;J Rkhh; 9 Mz;Lfs; Kbtile;j gpd;dh; kD mspj;Js;sjhy; muR Mizg;gb ,tuJ kDit ghprPypf;f ,aytpy;iy vd;w tpguk; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”

¶32

Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. When

¶33

the matter was listed on 28.06.2018, notice was taken by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a counter affidavit, dated nil, 2018. In paragraph 6 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

¶34

“6…the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk PS, Virudhunagar District is instructed to get the following mandatory documents from the legal heir of the deceased in which to claim government service on compassionate grounds vide this office memo in Rc.No. A1(3)/ 64359/2008, dated 09.02.2009. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk PS, Virudhunagar District has sent report along with documents obtained from Tmt. Santha, W/o. Late HC 2180 Ramachandran with a

¶35

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

¶36

3/6

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.13838 of 2018

¶38

requesting petitioner in which to issue government service to her elder child namely Selvi.Muthusaraynya on behalf of herself on 05.07.2010. On scrutinizing the above said documents, it is found that Selvi. Muthusaranya, D/o. Late HC 2180 Ramachandran was not completed 18 years and it was clearly known from the legal heir certificate issued by the Thasildhar, Srivilliputtur Taluk, Virudhunagar District vide Certificate No. 741/2008, dated 31.12.2008. Hence, the representation of Tmt. Santha, W/o. Late HC 2180 Ramachandran was rejected Vide this office memo in Rc.No.A1(3)/64359/2008, dated 27.09.2010 based on the instructions of Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Chennai – 4 vide circular memo in Rc.No. 100/C/A/1/2017, dated 06.11.2017 wherein, after 23.08.2005 those who applied for government service on compassionate ground they should complete 18 years at the time of apply.

¶39

……Tmt. Santha, W/o. Late HC 2180 Ramachandran has once again applied for government service on compassionate grounds after 9 years and the same was also rejected vide this office memo in Rc.No.G6/5296/46/2018, dated 26.02.2018 based on the instructions of G.O.(MS) No. 120 Employment work Department, dated 26.05.1995. In that G.O. it is clearly stated that the legal heir of deceased person whether he / should apply for government service within 3 years from the date of death of the deceased person.”

¶40

It is pertinent to note that the provision for compassionate

¶41

appointment constitutes an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, any relief sought under such a scheme must be examined and applied strictly in accordance with its terms. The Respondent has contended that the Petitioner’s application was filed beyond the period

¶42

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

¶43

4/6

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.13838 of 2018

¶45

prescribed under the scheme. In this regard, reference may be made to the

¶46

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tinku v. State of Haryana,

¶47

reported in 2024 INSC 867 , wherein it was held as follows:

¶48

“16. In the present case, as is apparent from the record, the Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father. The claim, thus, has rightly been rejected by the respondent State. The decisions of the High Court vide the impugned judgments rejecting the claim of the Appellant thus, cannot be faulted with”.

¶49