High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22.12.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.142 of 2007G.Vijayakumar... Petitionerversus 1. The Commisioner & Secretary to the Department of Highways and Rural Works Secretariat Fort St.George Chennai 600 0092. The Chief Enigneer Highways & Rural Work Chepauk Chennai 600 0053. The Superintending Engineer Highways & Rural Works Department Chennai Division Chennai 600 0254. The Divisional Engineer Highways & Rural Works Department Chenglepattu5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer Highways & Rural Works Maduranthagam Chengalepattu... RespondentsPRAYER: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.1453 of2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with aprayer to call for the records relating to the issue of the orderbearing No.KN.6841/A/2/95 dated 11.10.1999 issued by the fourthrespondent viz., The Divisional Engineer, Highway and Rural WorksDepartment, Chenglepattu, directing the respondents to appoint thepetitioner as Junior Assistant in the Department of Highways & RuralWorks, Chennai, on compassionate grounds in connection with the deathof his father Late R.Govindan. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner:Mr.D.Ashok KumarFor Respondents:Mrs.C.K.Vishnu PriyaAdditional Government Pleader O R D E RThe Original Application in O.A.No.1453 of 2001 before theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner's father was appointed as Gang Mazdoor on01.06.1971 in Chengalpattu Highways Division. While he was serving inthe respondents-Department, he died on 08.08.1980 due to illnessleaving behind him, his wife and his son (the petitioner herein).Since the petitioner's mother did not have basic qualification, shedid not apply for compassionate appointment. At the time of death ofhis father, the petitioner was only aged three years. In November1995, the petitioner made an application for compassionateappointment. The fourth respondent sought for report from theAssistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu,in respect of the qualification and other details relating topetitioner for compassionate appointment. The fourth respondent alsosent a letter dated 06.03.1996 to the third respondent that he wasawaiting report from the Assistant Divisional Engineer. Thepetitioner also gave a representation to the Chief Minister Cellseeking compassionate appointment and the same was forwarded to theconcerned Collector and the Collector in-turn sought report from thesecond respondent. The fourth respondent sent a letter dated11.10.1999 to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, stating that thesecond respondent passed an order dated 06.05.1999 returning theapplication of petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on theground that the application was made after seventeen years of thedeath of the father of the petitioner and that thereforecompassionate appointment could not be given to petitioner. It isstated that the same was intimated to the petitioner by a letterdated 21.05.1999 of the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.1453of 2001 (W.P.No.142 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order dated11.10.1999 issued by the fourth respondent and consequentialdirection to respondents to provide him compassionate appointment.4. Heard Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional GovernmentPleader for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theimpugned order mainly proceeds on the basis that the compassionate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment was sought after 17 years from the date of death of theGovernment employee and that therefore, the petitioner is notentitled to seek compassionate appointment. It is submitted thatprior to the year 1995, there was no limitation prescribed forseeking compassionate appointment. The Government entertainedapplications for compassionate appointment without reference to anylimitation. However, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.120,Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995 prescribing threeyears period of limitation from the date of death of the Governmentservant to seek compassionate appointment. It is further submitted bythe learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents seem tohave been influenced by the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.120. But the Labourand Employment Department of the Government issued a letter ofclarification in Letter No.39924/Q1/95-1 dated 11.10.1995 statingthat the aforesaid Government Order is applicable only to the deathsthat occur after 26.06.1995 and not to past cases. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner relies on the following passage from thesaid letter:-"......In this connection, it is clarified that thetime limit of three years period specified in theGovernment Order first cited is applicable only to thedependants of the Government servants those who diedwhile in service on or after 26.6.95 and the aboveorder are not applicable to the past cases...."6. The learned Additional Government Pleader, argued basedon instructions, seeks to sustain the impugned order and submits thatthe belated application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side.The claim for compassionate appointment should be based on the schemethat is available and it should be within the scheme. Admittedly, itis not in dispute that before 1995, the applications were entertainedwithout reference to any limitation. Only in the year 1995, thelimitation was prescribed for making application for compassionateappointment. It was clarified by the Labour and EmploymentDepartment of the Government in its letter No.39924/Q1/95-1 dated11.10.1995 that the prescription of three years limitation does notapply to past cases. Had the respondents taken note of the aforesaidletter of the Government, the fourth respondent could not have passedthe impugned order. Since the impugned order is solely on the groundthat the application was made after 17 years from the date of death,it is liable to be interfered with in view of the clarificationletter dated 11.10.1995 of the Labour and Employment Department,referred to above. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set asideand the matter is remitted to the second respondent to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to passappropriate order on merits and in accordance with law, withoutreference to limitation, within a period of twelve weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. Nocosts. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarr n s To1. The Commisioner & Secretary to the Department of Highways and Rural Works Secretariat Fort St.George Chennai 600 0092. The Chief Enigneer Highways & Rural Work Chepauk, Chennai 600 0053. The Superintending Engineer Highways & Rural Works Department Chennai Division, Chennai 600 0254. The Divisional Engineer Highways & Rural Works Department Chenglepattu5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer Highways & Rural Works Maduranthagam Chengalepattu1 cc To M/s.D.Ashokkumar, Advocate, SR.709961 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.7113W.P.No.142 of 2007MG(CO)sra 18.01.2010