Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4128 (MAD)

M. Alagesan v. Secretary to Government

2013-12-09

R.SUBBIAH

body2013
Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.11.2012 in Na.Ka.A3/12037/2012 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the second son of the deceased Thiru A. Manivel, who was employed as a Village Assistant at Pappayampadi village, Kavoor taluk, Karur District and died in harness on 20.01.2001. After the demise of his father, on 19.3.2001, the petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment, but the same was not considered as his mother was not possessing requisite qualification. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and hence, he could not apply for the post. Thereafter, after attaining the majority on 9.7.2011 and after having completed HSC (+Two) in the year 2012, the petitioner has made an application on 11.7.2012 to the 3rd respondent, seeking compassionate appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order, dated 14.11.2013, the 3rd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, on the sole ground that the present application was made belatedly and it has to be made within a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after the death of the father of the petitioner, her mother had applied for compassionate appointment within the time, i.e. on 19.3.2001, but the authorities had not considered the same and it was kept pending and the petitioner, after attaining the majority, made the application on 11.7.2012 with adequate qualifications within a period of three years from the date of his attaining majority, and therefore, it is not belated one, but in continuation of the application made by the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court reported in “ (2012) 2 MLJ 211 (R. Sridevi versus Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Chennai and others)” and also a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in “ (2013) 8 MLJ 190 (P. Sathiaraman versus Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity and others)”. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother had applied on 19.3.2001, i.e. immediately after the death of her husband and the respondents had not passed any orders therein, but kept it pending. Thereafter, the petitioner, having attained majority on 9.7.2011, has made application on 11.7.2012 for compassionate appointment, within the time, i.e within three years of his attaining majority. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the claim for compassionate appointment, had been made by the mother of the petitioner within time and when she could not be considered due to her inadequate qualification, the claim for compassionate appointment has been followed by her son, i.e. the petitioner herein, who has applied within three years of his attaining majority and hence, it is not belated one. 5. In “R.Sridevi case (cited supra), a Division Bench of this Court has dealt with a similar issue and has categorically held in para 12 as under: “12. …After analyzing the above said case laws, it was held that within 3 years of death of her husband, when the widow applied for appointment on compassionate ground, and due to bar of age etc., when she could not be appointed and the request for appointment has been followed by her son/daughter, who have then not attained majority and subsequently, applied within three years of their attaining majority, the request could be considered as continuation of their mother’s application and the application given by him/her during the majority also could be considered as continuation of such earlier application and it cannot be denied on the ground that the application has been presented beyond 3 years of death of the father. It is not the case of the respondents that the family of the appellant is not in indigent status as on today.” 6. It is not the case of the respondents that the family of the appellant is not in indigent status as on today.” 6. The factual aspects and the issue involved in the above case are identical to the facts of the present case. Having the regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground that it was presented belatedly. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 14.11.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside and consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment positively and appoint him in any suitable post within period of four weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.