High Court · 2025

W.P.No.30061 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.02.2025 CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.30061 of 2015R.Pachaiyappan,S/o. Late Ramalingam ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Office at Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 2.The District Forest Officer, Thirupathur, Vellore District.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records which culminated in the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.L.L.2/26919/09 dated 16.08.2010 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.L.L.2/13317/12 dated 04.06.2012, quash both the orders and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner either as Forest Watcher or to any other suitable post befitting to his qualification within a time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 2015For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents: Mr.M.Murali Government AdvocateORDERThe petitioner is aggrieved by the Impugned Order bearing Na.Ka.No.L.L.2/26919/09 dated 16.08.2010 and the Impugned Order bearing Na.Ka.No.L.L.2/13317/12 dated 04.06.2012, passed by the 1st respondent whereby the request of the petitioner for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground after the demise of his father has been rejected. Operative portion of the Impugned Orders read as under:-Impugned Order dated 16.08.2010Impugned Order dated 04.06.2012fhy";brd;w vk;/ ,uhkyp';fk; tdf;fhtyhpd; kfd; jpU/Mh;/gr;irag;gd; fUiz mog;gilapy; tdf;fhtyh; gzp epakdk; tH';f nfhhpaJ Fwpj;J ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ kDjhuh; ghh;it 1y; fhdDk; muR foj bjspt[iufspd;go muR CHpah; ,we;j nghJ fUiz mog;gilapy; tdf;fhtyh; gzp epakdj;jpw;F jFjpbgwtpy;iy vd;gJ bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ muR CHpauhd jpU/tp/uhkyp';fk;. tdf;fhtyh; fhykhd njjpad;W mtuJ thhprhd j';fsJ (jpU/,uh/gr;irag;gd;) taJ gjpbdhd;whf ,Ue;jikahy; tpjpKiwfspd;go fUiz mog;gilapy; epakdk; bra;tjw;fhd jFjpfs; ,y;iy/ ,J Fwpj;j jfty; Vw;fdnt j';fSf;F ,t;tYtyf foj vz;/vy;/vy;/2-26919-2009. ehs; 16/08/2010?y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gija[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 20152. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father who was working as a Forest Watcher with the Forest Department died during the course of service on 16.03.1998 leaving behind his wife, 3 daughters and 2 sons, including the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner was a minor. 3. The petitioner's mother had initially filed an application for appointment of the petitioner's elder sister namely Kalaivani on 30.06.1999. However, the application was not processed on the ground that there was a ban for appointment imposed by the Government and only after the ban is lifted, the claim made in the application will be considered. 4. During the Interregnum, the petitioner's elder sister Kalaivani was given in marriage and therefore the application given for appointment of petitioner's sister was withdrawn. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground which was also favourably considered. The petitioner was also called for certificate verification and original testimonials. 5. It appears that the petitioner was also called for an interview on 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 201512.10.2009 and that the petitioner had attended the interview but was not heard thereafter from the respondents. However, by proceedings dated 16.08.2010, the 1st respondent rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to get appointed to the post of Forest Watcher since the petitioner had not attained majority at the time of the petitioner's father's death. 6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is therefore liable to be dismissed. He would submit that the petitioner was merely 11 years, at the time of his father's death and was therefore not eligible to be appointed to the post of Forest Watcher. 7. Hence, there cannot be any appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition and the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 20159. The petitioner's family has been left in the lurch despite several Government Orders which have recognized the appointment to be made on compassionate ground especially when the breadwinner dies in harness. 10. In this case, the petitioner's father died on 16.03.1998 when the petitioner was a minor, and aged about 11 years. Obviously, the petitioner could not have been considered for appointment as a Forest Watcher or in any other post at that point of time as his employment would be gross violation of constitution and the law prohibiting the employment of children.11. Here is the case where the petitioner's mother had given an application on 30.06.1999 for appointment of the petitioner's elder sister. The said application was kept in cold storage on account of the general ban and therefore the application was not considered. Meanwhile, the petitioner's elder sister got married and therefore the application was withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner was made an application and was called for an interview. The fact remains that after the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner would have suffered without any guidance and proper financial support to continue his education.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 201512. It is, under these circumstances, Government Orders have been issued with benevolence in mind for making appointments on compassionate ground. The fact remains that the petitioner's family has been deprived of a breadwinner and merely because the petitioner's elder sister has withdrawn the application would not mean that the family is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment.13. It would have been different after appointment was made, the petitioner's elder sister had not cooperated with the petitioner and the family and therefore the claim was made for 2nd appointment on compassionate ground.14. In this case, the petitioner's family itself has been deprived of benefit particularly on account of general ban that was placed during the material period. 15. As such, there is no justification in denying the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground after the death of Late Ramalingam who was working as a Forest Watcher with the Forest Department.16. Under these circumstances, both the Impugned Orders 16.08.2010 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 2015and 04.06.2012 passed by the 1st respondent are set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to suitably appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after obtaining relaxation of age for appointment from the Government.17. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. 25.02.2025Neutral Citation : Yes / NoarbC.SARAVANAN, J.arbTo:1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Office at Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 2.The District Forest Officer, Thirupathur, Vellore District.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30061 of 2015W.P.No.30061 of 2015 25.02.2025 8/8