Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4091 (MAD)

Dheen Muhamed v. State of Tamil Nadu

2013-12-04

R.SUBBIAH

body2013
Judgment 1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in Na.Ka.No.A3/4020/2013 dated 01.08.2013 of the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post within a time frame. 3. The petitioner’s father was working as Village Assistant in Poolampadi Village at Perambalur and he had joined the service in the year 1987. While he was in service, he died on 03.06.2002 leaving behind the petitioner’s mother, sisters and older brother. At the time of demise of the petitioner’s father his mother remained as house-wife and the petitioner’s elder brother got married and moved out of the family. The petitioner was obliged to maintain his mother along with his family. The petitioner studied upto 9th standard. The petitioner has submitted an application dated 31.12.2003 to the 1st respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Since no action was taken by the 1st respondent, the petitioner made several representations dated 05.01.2004, 27.04.2009, 28.02.2011, 13.06.2011, 21.05.2012 and 11.02.2013 to the 2nd respondent seeking early issue of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 4. While so, by proceedings dated 01.08.2013, the 2nd respondent has rejected the petitioner’s application stating that the upper age can be considered from the date of application produced by the legal heirs of the deceased servant under G.O.No.135 of labour and Employment Department (02) dated 04.10.2006. The petitioner was only 34 years at the time of death of this farther and he submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 31.12.2013, within the prescribed time limit. Now, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent after a period of 10 years rejecting the petitioner’s application. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition with the prayer as stated above. 5. Now, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent after a period of 10 years rejecting the petitioner’s application. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition with the prayer as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.11059 of 2011, dated 27.06.2011 and submitted that in the said case, in similar set of facts, by considering G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (s) Department dated 11.08.2010, which amended Rule 54-B of the General Rules and granted 5 years of age relaxation due to ban order issued by the Government for five years, this Court has disposed of the said writ petition by giving direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner therein afresh by taking note of the said amendment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by following the said order of this Court, the present writ petition could be disposed of. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 7. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment stating that on the date of submitting the application, the petitioner has completed 35 years and 7 months age and only unmarried son of daughter of the deceased employee below the age 35 years are eligible for the compassionate appointment. 8. But, in an identical issue, in W.P.No.11059 of 2011, by taking note of the amendment to Rule 54-B of the General Rules, this Court has given direction, vide order dated 27.06.2011, to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner therein. The relevant portion of the said order as follows:- “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.08.2010, amending Rule 54-B of the General Rules granted 5 years of age relaxation due to ban order issued by the Government for five years. The relevant portion of the said order as follows:- “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.08.2010, amending Rule 54-B of the General Rules granted 5 years of age relaxation due to ban order issued by the Government for five years. The said amended Rule reads as follows:- AMENDMENT:- In the said Rules, After Rule 54-A, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:- “54-B concession for person affected due to the ban on direct recruitments:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special rules for the various state and subordinate services or in any adhoc rules applicable to any affected due to the ban on direct recruitment that was imposed on the 29th November 2001, the upper age limit shall be raised to a maximum period of five years reckoned on and from the 17th July 2006, ending with the 16th July 2011, in computing his age for appointment to any post under the State Government, except the categories of posts of Teachers, Doctors and Police Constabulary and shall be applicable in respect of notifications issued or selections made by competent recruiting authorities or appointments made by competent appointing authorities during the aforesaid period.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the light of the amendment issued by the government through G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.08.2010, the petitioner’s claim is bound to be re-considered by the second respondent. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the light of the amendment issued by the government through G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.08.2010, the petitioner’s claim is bound to be re-considered by the second respondent. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. In the light of the said amendment of the Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.08.2010 and as the petitioner is well within the age of 40 who being a Backward Class candidate, the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner taking note of the amended Rule 54-B and pass necessary fresh orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Government letter No.37455/02/2009-3, dated 28.04.2010, Labour and Employment (02) Department, and submitted that an amendment has been issued to the Annexure to the Government Letter (Ms).No.5, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.05.2006 and as per the said amendment, a married son is also entitled to compassionate appointment. 9. In view of he above amendment to Rule 54(b) of he General Rules issued in G.O.Ms.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 11.08.2010, and the amendment to the Annexure to the Government Letter (Ms).No.5, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.05.2006 issued vide Letter No.37455/02/2009. 3, dated 28.04.2010, Labour and Employment (02) Department, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment, as the petitioner is well within the age of 40 years. 10. Hence, the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, taking note of the above said amendments, and to pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.