JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- lakhs with interest as compensation, to the petitioner in respect of death of petitioner''s wife based on petitioner''s representation dated 05.06.2013 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.) 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest as compensation to the petitioner in respect of the death of the petitioner''s wife, based on the petitioner''s representation dated 05.06.2013. 2/9 2. Heard Mr.S.Baskar Mathuram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 7. 3. Mr.S.Baskar Mathuram, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner''s wife was engaged as a Cook at South Silukkanpatti Panchayat Union Primary School. On 01.05.2013 around 09.15 am., when the petitioner''s wife had gone to the school, the sun shade fell on the petitioner''s wife and she suffered grievous injuries and was admitted in the Government hospital, Thoothukudi, wherein she died on 05.05.2013 at 09.00 am. He would further submit that the 8th respondent, a Panel Contractor was carrying on construction activity in the 7th respondent premises and due to the improper construction made by the 8th respondent, the sun shade fell on the petitioner''s wife and that she died due to the injuries sustained by her. 4. He would further submit that the respondents are all liable to compensate the petitioner and therefore, he had made a representation to the respondents, which has not been considered till date. Hence, he had approached this Court by 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.616 of 2014 way of filing of this writ petition. 5. Countering his arguments, Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 7 relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent would submit that the school was on holiday on 01.05.2013 and that there was no necessity for the petitioner''s wife to go to the school. She would also submit that the petitioner''s wife was covered under the Group Insurance Scheme and pursuant to the said scheme, the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 18.12.2013 and therefore, he is not entitled for any other further compensation. 6. She would also submit that the petitioner''s wife was covered under the Group Insurance Scheme and pursuant to the said scheme, the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 18.12.2013 and therefore, he is not entitled for any other further compensation. 6. She would further submit that the building was under construction and that the petitioner''s wife while trying to enter into the toilet attached to the school had removed certain props put up by the contractor for easy access without noting the danger of removal of props. Only because the petitioner’s wife act of removing the props, the sun shade, which was under construction, had fell on her, for which the respondents could not be held to be liable. However, she would also submit that the fifth respondent on filing the counter affidavit had made an 4/9 averment that the legal heirs of the deceased can apply for compassionate appointment and the same would be considered within a period of three years from the date of death. This averment had not been taken que by the petitioner. No one had applied seeking for compassionate appointment. When that be so, at this length of time, the claim for compassionate appointment could not also be now considered, as such a claim would be time barred. Hence, she would submit that the generosity shown by the respondents have not been taken advantage by the petitioner or his family members even to seek compassionate appointment. Hence, she would pray to reject the writ petition. 7. I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side. 8. It has been time and again held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the claim for compensation cannot be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Useful reference is made to the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi and others reported in (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 543, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of U.P.State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 741 has held that when disputed question of facts arose, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 741 has held that when disputed question of facts arose, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the present case, the death of the petitioner''s wife had been caused as the sun shade fell on her. The claim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondents alleging that it was the petitioner''s wife, who had unnecessarily gone to the school compound on a public holiday. She had also removed certain structures, which was the cause for the sun shade to fall on her. When such disputes have been raised, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to adjudicate the same. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil Court seeking compensation. But however, considering the fact that it is almost a decade back, when the incident had happened and that the prayer in the writ petition is only seeking for a direction to dispose of the representation for compensation, I direct the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent seeking ex gratia payment for the death of 6/9 his wife on 05.05.2013. If such representation is made, the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Even though a generous offer was made by the fifth respondent to consider the case of the legal heirs of the deceased for compassionate appointment, none of the legal heirs of the deceased had either made an attempt to put into use such generosity exhibited by the fifth respondent. Again at this length of time, I also do not propose to issue directions to consider the claim of the compassionate appointment. This is again considering the various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon''ble Apex Court, wherein it has been repeatedly held that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.