IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.13429 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 C.Dilli Babu ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General), P.W.D. Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Chief Engineer (Buildings), P.W.D. Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. South West Sub-Division, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records relating to the order passed by the second respondent vide letter No.S3(4)/69606/2007/ dated 09.03.2010 and the consequential return of documents by the third respondent vide Ka.No.3538/Ni.A/Oo.Sa.Po/2010 dated 11.10.2010, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to any eligible post forthwith and to extend all benefits arising thereto. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.C.Swamy Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner's father was working as a NMR on daily wages in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Chepauk, Chennai from 01.08.1978. He worked in the said office upto June 1984. Thereafter, he was transferred to the 4th respondent Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Division. He died on 15.01.1995 while he was in service. He was regularised by an order dated 16.08.1995 with effect from 01.01.1989. The petitioner's mother was paid Family Pension at the rate of Rs.375/- per month. She was also paid DCRG. The petitioner's mother made an application dated 16.08.1996, claiming compassionate appointment for her or her son. Later, she made a representation dated 23.04.1997, claiming compassionate appointment for her. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated 09.07.2001, claiming compassionate appointment for him. The 3rd respondent by letter dated 27.08.2001, directed the petitioner to apply in proper format along with relevant documents. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the same. The application was rejected by the second respondent, by an order dated 09.03.2010, on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was made after six years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. All the documents were returned by an order dated 11.10.2010 by the fourth respondent. 2. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 09.03.2010 and the order of the fourth respondent dated 11.10.2010 and to quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground to any eligible post. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner failed to make the application for compassionate appointment within 3 years from the date of death of his father and therefore, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, there was no limitation prescribed for making application for compassionate appointment. The time limit of three years was prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, Dated 26.06.1995. The same was clarified by the Labour and Employment Department in its letter No.39924/Q1/95-1 dated 11.10.1995 that three years prescription could apply only in the case of Government Servant, who died after 26.06.1995 and in the case of the death of the Government servant which occurred prior to 26.06.1995, there was no time limit for making application. Therefore, the respondents are not correct in rejecting the application on the ground that the application was made after three years from the date of the death of the father of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was made by the petitioner's mother on 16.08.1996 and thereafter, she made another application on 23.04.1997. The applications dated 16.08.1996 and 23.04.1997 are enclosed in the typed set. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the seal as well as endorsement made therein, would establish that the application was made within three years. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he suffered due to Polio at his childhood. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks to sustain the impugned order stating that the application was made beyond three years. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 8. The father of the petitioner was employed as NMR on daily wages from 01.08.1978. He worked from 1978 to June 1984 in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Chepauk, Chennai. Thereafter, he was transferred to the 4th respondent Sub Division and worked there until his death. He was regularised in Service with effect from 01.01.1989 by an order dated 16.08.1995. The petitioner's mother is paid Family pension as her husband's service was regularised. The petitioner's mother was also paid DCRG. The compassionate appointment was declined on the ground that the petitioner made an application belatedly after 3 years. According to the respondent, the application was made by the petitioner after 6 years from the date of death of his father. According to the petitioner, there was no time limit for making application for employment on compassionate ground on the death of the Government Servant, until the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department dated 26.06.1995. The Government prescribes the limitation of 3 years only in G.O.Ms.No.120 and the same is extracted hereunder: "The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in its orders in O.A.No.6554/1993 dated 15.10.1993 and in O.A.No.5111/94 dated 17.10.1994 had observed that the existing Government orders under the Scheme of Compassionate ground appointments may be reviewed and until such review appointment on compassionate ground may be suspended. Accordingly, the Government in the letter sixth read above had issued instructions to all Heads of Departments to keep in abeyance all appointments and matter relating to compassionate ground appointments. 2. Simultaneously, the Government also reviewed the existing orders under the scheme. After careful review the Government issue the following modifications to the scheme. 1. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the date of Government Servant; 2. The maximum age limit for such appointment be raised to 50 in the case of widows of the deceased Government Servants. This order will take effect from the date of the issue of the order." Thereafter, it was clarified by the Labour and Employment Department by letter dated 11.10.1995 that 3 years limitation for making application, is applied only in the case of the death of the Government Servant, who died after 26.06.1995 and there could be no limitation, in the case of death of the Government Servant, who died prior to 26.06.1995. That letter is extracted hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "In the Government Order 1st cited, the following modifications were issued to the existing scheme of appointments under compassionate grounds to the dependants of the deceased Government Servants, with effect from the date of issue of order:- i) The applications for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made within three years of the death of Government Servants. ii) The maximum age limit for such appointment be raised to 50 years in the case of widows of the deceased Government Servants. 2. in this connection, the District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District has sought for clarifications whether the time limit of three years period specified in the Government Order are applicable to the dependants of the Government Servants who died prior to the date of issue of the Government Order. In this connection, it is clarified that the time limit of three years period specified in the Government Order first cited is applicable only to the dependants of the Government Servants those who died while in service on or after 26.06.1995 and the above orders are not applicable to the past cases. Further the Government clarify, that the age limit of 50 years for appointment under the scheme in the case of widows as ordered in the said Government Order is also applicable only to the widows of the Government Servants those who died on or after 26.06.1995." 9. Hence, in my view, the petitioner is right in his contention that the impugned order of the second respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application was belatedly made after three years is contrary to the said letter dated 11.10.1995 of the Labour and Employment of the Tamil Nadu Government. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's mother made an application on 16.08.1996 and thereafter, the petitioner's mother made another application on 23.04.1997. It was also pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition about the making of those applications. But in the Counter affidavit, there is no wishper about the same. Furthermore, I have perused the applications dated 23.04.1997 that was enclosed in the typed set wherein there is a seal as well as an endorsement. In these circumstances, the respondents are not correct in stating that the petitioner made a belated application. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 09.03.2010 of the second respondent is quashed and the petitioner is directed to resubmit the application seeking compassionate appointment. The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, providing compassionate appointment, if there is no other impediment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of the application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ogy To 1. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General), P.W.D. Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 3. The Chief Engineer (Buildings), P.W.D. Chepauk, Chennai – 5. 4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. South West Sub-Division, DPI Campus, Chennai – 6. + 1 cc to Mr.L. Chandrkumar, Sr.45217 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.45590 W.P.No.13429 of 2011 RJ(CO) Eu 26.8.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/