Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 62 (MAD)

S. P. Ragavendran v. Commissioner

2013-01-03

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondent to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as 'Junior Assistant'. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as 'Superintendent' in the Marketing Committee, Theni and died on 04.01.1995 while in service, leaving behind the petitioner as his son and his wife P.Andal as legal heirs. Immediately, after the death of the petitioner's father, an application was submitted to the respondent by the petitioner's mother seeking for compassionate appointment to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.225, Labour Department, dated 15.07.1972. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. in April 1997, +2 in March 1990 and B.Com. in April 2002 and therefore, he is fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant. The respondent through his communication, dated 27.02.1995 informed that the compassionate appointment can be granted to the petitioner only after attaining eligibility, if no other member was in Government service. The Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai, through his proceedings, dated 05.12.2001 sent necessary proposal to the respondent and recommended for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner's mother also died on 25.11.2003. As no information was received on the petitioner's application seeking for compassionate appointment, he approached the Chief Minister Cell. Thereafter, the respondent through communication, dated 17.09.2004 informed the petitioner that there was a ban on appointment and his request will be considered after the lifting of the ban. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that the ban imposed in the year 2002 was subsequently lifted in the year 2006. Thereafter, the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai once again sent a proposal to the respondent for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner through his communication, dated 02.03.2006. The respondent did not consider the request, in spite of the petitioner's repeated requests and representations made on 10.08.2009 and 18.08.2009. In fact, the respondent sought for certain particulars from the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai through his communication, dated 10.09.2009. It is stated that the Secretary through his communication, dated 03.11.2009 sent all the requisite particulars. In spite of the same, the petitioner's request was not considered and therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit and it is stated that the petitioner's father was working as 'Superintendent' in the Regulated Market, Theni and died on 04.1.1995 while in service. In spite of the same, the petitioner's request was not considered and therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit and it is stated that the petitioner's father was working as 'Superintendent' in the Regulated Market, Theni and died on 04.1.1995 while in service. His wife P.Andal sent an application seeking for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner. The said application was forwarded to the respondent by the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai, through his letter, dated 08.02.1995. The respondent informed the Secretary, Marketing committee, Madruai that the legal heir of the Government servant is eligible for compassionate appointment, only if no other family members are working in the Government service and other jobs. The wife of the deceased, once again submitted an application along with necessary records seeking for an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner was informed that there was a ban on appointment and the petitioner's case will be considered only after lifting of the ban. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application on 02.03.2006 with relevant records seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was considered and rejected on the ground that the petitioner's mother was working in a private school and getting a monthly salary of Rs.4,439/-. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a mercy petition to the Government on 24.09.2009 and the Government called for remarks from the respondent and consequently asked the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai to send the required documents regarding the petitioner's mercy petition for further action. 5. It is seen from the above narrated facts that the petitioner's father died on 04.01.1995, while he was in service. Immediately, the petitioner's mother made an application to the authorities seeking for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 6. It is also seen that the said application submitted by the petitioner's mother was not considered on the reason that the petitioner's mother was employed in a private school and again, when the petitioner approached the respondent seeking for compassionate appointment, it was not considered on the ground that there was a ban for appointment imposed by the Government. 7. It is further seen that the petitioner once again approached the authorities seeking for compassionate appointment immediately after lifting of the ban. 7. It is further seen that the petitioner once again approached the authorities seeking for compassionate appointment immediately after lifting of the ban. It is also seen that the Secretary, Marketing Committee, Madurai, every time recommended the case of the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment, through his repeated proposals sent to the respondent. In the mean time, the petitioner's mother also died on 25.11.2003. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there cannot be any impediment for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, especially under the circumstance that the mother of the petitioner also died on 25.11.2003. When the earlier rejection order came to be passed only on the ground that the petitioner's mother was working and there was also ban on appointment, the same reasons are not presently available to the respondent to reject the claim of the petitioner. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, if he is otherwise qualified to the said post. 9. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that for appointing a person in the post of Junior Assistant is within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, there cannot be any appointment made straight away to the post of Junior Assistant. If that be the position, it is for the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner to any other suitable post, taking note of his qualification and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.