1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 08..03..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.328 of 2011 N.F.S.Abdul Kadhar, S/o. Rehna Sulthan Batcha, 98, Chittalakshi Nagar, Rajanbai Compound, Near Rajan Hospital, Mahaboobpalayam, Madurai. ..... Appellant - Vs - 1. The Director of Medical Education, Chennai - 10. 2. The Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai ......Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.10.2008 passed in W.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2008. WP(MD)No.5412 of 2008 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give any one of the post to the petitioner on compassionate grounds for the death of Rehana Sulthan Batcha. For Appellant :: Mr. A. Shahul Hameed J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008. The said W.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2008 has been filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the name of the appellant herein for appointment on compassionate ground. However, the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay has dismissed the writ petition by order dated 29.10.2008. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant's mother, who was an employee under the respondents, died in the year 1982 while in service. Since the appellant was a minor at the relevant point of time, on attaining the age of majority in the year 1995, he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Though the appellant was directed to produce the relevant certificates in the year 1995, subsequently no order of appointment has been issued. Consequently, he has filed the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, since the appellant was a minor at the relevant point of time, he can apply for appointment only after attaining majority. At the relevant point of time, the two children of the appellant's mother were minors, consequently, they were not able to apply for the appointment. Hence, the question of delay does not arise at all. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that after directing the appellant to submit all his relevant certificates for verification in the year 1995, the respondents ought to have given an appointment to the appellant on compassionate ground. Basing on this, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant is entitled for the relief sought. 4. We are not able to accept the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The object of appointment on compassionate ground is to help the family of the deceased who died in harness. When the appellant is able to survive for a period of nearly 14 years after the death of his mother, after a lapse of 14 years, as a matter of right he cannot claim the appointment on compassionate ground. Apart from this, on the death of a government servant, who died in harness, if the family was in indigent condition, to help the family one should be given an appointment. Since such a condition did not prevail, no attempt was made by any member of the family concerned for appointment on compassionate ground. When the object is to help the family of the deceased on the death of the government servant to give a financial assistance, giving an application itself after the lapse of 14 years will indicate that the family is not in such a condition. 5. Apart from this, even as per paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112, Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar & Others which read as under: "20. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. 21. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependants of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personal Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P) , who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court." if an application has been made after a lapse of time, one is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P & A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To: 1. The Director of Medical Education, Chennai - 10. 2. The Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr. A.Shahul Hameed, Advocate, SR.No.5501 +1 CC to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.5653 Dpn Writ Appeal (MD)No.328 of 2011 08.03.2011 TR : 06.04.2011 : 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/