Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 754 (MAD)

E. Venugopal v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-02-13

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2012
Judgment :- (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.6195 of 2009, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant is that his father, who was working as Office Assistant in the third respondent-Committee, died on 8.1.1986. His mother sent an application on 27.2.1986 to the third respondent seeking to provide appointment to the appellant on compassionate ground. However the same was rejected since she was working as Teacher in Local Administration Department. Thereafter, after seven years of his father's death, the appellant made a representation on 11.9.1993 seeking for employment assistance on compassionate ground. Based upon the same, the third respondent had recommended the case of the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant, in his application dated 18.2.1995, had given his consent for posting him as Office Assistant and the said application was forwarded by the Government to the second respondent vide endorsement dated 1.3.1995. 3. The further case of the appellant is that since the third respondent was the appointing authority, the second respondent issued necessary direction, permitting the third respondent to appoint the appellant as Office Assistant after getting an undertaking that the appellant would not claim the post of Junior Assistant later if he was appointed as Office Assistant. Thereafter, the appellant was appointed as Office Assistant by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 24.4.1995. While so, the first respondent, by letter dated 8.7.1996, directed the second respondent to terminate the services of the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was terminated from service by order dated 31.7.1996 without giving any notice to the appellant. 4. Challenging the same, the appellant filed O.A. No.4112 of 1996 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, admitted the said O.A. and granted stay of the termination order. Hence, the appellant was continuing in service pending disposal of the said O.A. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.19890 of 2006. Hence, the appellant was continuing in service pending disposal of the said O.A. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.19890 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 20.11.2006, disposed of the said writ petition, holding as follows:- "In view of the fact that the petitioner is in service for the past 11 years, pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal and also in view of the fact that the Government directed the 2nd respondent to send a proposal, even while dismissing writ petition, the 2nd respondent is permitted to send the proposal to the Government and the 1st respondent Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, in view of his continuance in office for the past ten years. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs." 5. The further case of the appellant is that in view of the aforesaid order, the services of the appellant was terminated vide order dated 4.2.2007. However, no proposal was sent to the Government as per the aforesaid order. Hence the appellant submitted a detailed representation on 8.2.2007 and a reminder dated 18.10.2007. The said representation has been recommended by the second respondent for appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground. But the first respondent, by letter dated 18.10.2007, has rejected the said proposal. Since the Government has not considered the matter in a proper perspective, the appellant submitted a detailed representation on 10.7.2008 to the Government, but no reply was received by him. 6. Hence, the appellant filed W.P. No.6195 of 2009 before this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 4.2.2007 and the order in letter of the first respondent dated 18.10.2007 and to direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the appellant in a proper perspective and sympathetically in view of his continuance in office for over ten years and appoint him as Office Assistant on compassionate ground with all attendant and consequential benefits. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 19.8.2011, dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 8. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 19.8.2011, dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 8. The appellant's father died on 8.1.1986. The application sent by the appellant's mother to the third respondent, seeking to provide appointment to the appellant on compassionate ground, was rejected on the ground of his mother's employment in Local Administration Department. Thereafter, based upon the consent given by the appellant for posting him as Office Assistant, his application was forwarded to the second respondent vide endorsement dated 1.3.1995. The second respondent issued necessary direction permitting the third respondent to appoint the appellant as Office Assistant after getting an undertaking that the appellant would not claim the post of Junior Assistant later if he was appointed as Office Assistant. 9. The second respondent sent a ratification for permitting the third respondent to appoint the appellant as Office Assistant with the first respondent. In the meanwhile, the third respondent had appointed the appellant as Office Assistant by proceedings dated 27.4.1995. However, the first respondent refused to ratify the appointment of the appellant stating that it was irregular and contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment. The first respondent also directed the third respondent to terminate the services of the appellant and accordingly, he was terminated from service by order dated 31.7.96. Challenging the same, the appellant filed O.A. No.4112 of 1996 before the Tribunal and on the strength of the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the appellant was continuing in service pending disposal of the said O.A. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.19890 of 2006. 10. This Court, by order dated 20.11.2006, disposed of the said writ petition, holding that the appointment of the appellant was irregular and permitted the second respondent to send a proposal to the first respondent and directed the first respondent to consider the case of the appellant in view of his continuance in office for the past ten years. In view of the said order, the appellant's service was terminated by order dated 4.2.2007. The second respondent also sent a representation to the Government on 8.2.2007. In view of the said order, the appellant's service was terminated by order dated 4.2.2007. The second respondent also sent a representation to the Government on 8.2.2007. However, the State Government rejected the same by order dated 18.10.2007. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. No.6195 of 2009 before this Court. 11. Learned single Judge, after going through the merits of the case, dismissed the said writ petition, holding as follows:- "13) Though the counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of the division bench in W.A. No.1559 of 2009, the division bench did not go into the latest judgment of the Supreme Court and in paragraph 6 of the judgment, it was observed as follows: "6)........ We quite see the force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. Compassionate appointment is not meant for persons who do not in fact face the difficulty. It is meant to tide over the immediate difficulty of the family. For a moment, we do not approve the manner in which he has obtained the employment. At the same time, it is also to be seen that in the instant case nearly after four years, the State Government has moved to cancel the appointment. Nothing is placed on record as to what action was taken against the officers, who are responsible for the disputed appointment and delayed action on the part of the Government. Almost similar facts were there in the two matters which have been referred herein in the sense that the persons were sought to be removed after passing of good number of years. Besides, by now, nearly 15 years have gone since the time the appellant has been initially appointed, and, therefore, we do not think that it will be fair to disturb his employment." 14) But, however in the present case, the first round of litigation has been negatived by this Court vide its judgment in W.P. No.19890 of 2006, dated 20.11.2006. Thereafter, after reconsidering the case, the Government had negatived the same and that the petitioner is not in service after the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the judgment of the division bench has o application to the case on hand." 12. Thereafter, after reconsidering the case, the Government had negatived the same and that the petitioner is not in service after the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the judgment of the division bench has o application to the case on hand." 12. Moreover, in W.A. No.1559 of 2006, the termination is after four years of continuous service, whereas in the case on hand, after termination, the appellant continued in service for ten years by virtue of interim order passed in O.A. No.4112 of 1996 and ultimately, the O.A., which was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.1980 of 2006, was dismissed. Hence, it is a case where the appellant was urging appointment on compassionate ground after ten years of service. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.