1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.4420 of 2011 M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Selvi Theresal ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.4117/09/H1, dated 15.07.2010, passed by the second respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to give suitable job to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the light of the recommendation made by the second respondent, dated 05.08.2010, to the first respondent. For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Karunanidhi For Respondent-1 .. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Govt. Pleader For Respondent-2 .. Mr.P.Srinivas O R D E R Being aggrieved by the order, dated 15.07.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Srivilliputhur, the second respondent herein, rejecting the case for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the same. Consequently, she has sought for a direction to the respondents to give any suitable job to her on compassionate grounds, in the light of the recommendation made by the second respondent, dated 05.08.2010, to the first respondent. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that her father, who worked as driver under the second respondent, died in harness on 31.07.2006. At that time, the petitioner was aged 16 years, studying in 10th Standard. Petitioner's mother was aged 52 years. After completion of computer course and after obtaining a legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur on 03.11.2009, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent on 01.09.2009 and that the same was forwarded in Rc.No.4117/09/H1, dated 07.01.2010 and 26.05.2010, to the Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, the first respondent herein. Earlier, the mother of the deceased employee had filed a Suit in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 O.S.No.442 of 2006, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, regarding employment of the petitioner and her mother to receive the retiral and other benefits due and payable to the deceased employee. In view of the pendency of the suit, the petitioner could not make any application. The said suit ended in favour of petitioner's mother on 10.12.2008. Thereafter, only an application, dated 01.09.2009, was submitted with a delay of one month. 3. According to the petitioner, her mother is uneducated and since there was no one to guide her, she could not make an application immediately. She further submitted that even assuming that there was a delay, it was only due to the pendency of the suit. In addition to the above, a decision of this Court in M.Uma v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B., reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 644, has been pressed into service, in support of the petitioner's contention that an application for compassionate appointment should not be rejected on mere ground of delay, even if it was filed after a lapse of time. 4. On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that when petitioner's father, Peter, who was working as Driver, died on 31.07.2006, the petitioner has completed her SSLC and that the petitioner has submitted her application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 01.09.2009, without enclosing the necessary documents such as, death certificate, L.R., certificate, Income Certificate, Educational Qualification Certificates and No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs, etc., and therefore, the second respondent has returned the application to furnish the abovesaid documents, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.27456/2010/H2, dated 23.06.2010. Thereafter, on receipt of the necessary documents, proposals were sent on 07.01.2010 to the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, the first respondent herein. Subsequently, vide letter, dated 06.03.2010, in Rc.No.1870/2010, the first respondent has directed the Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, to re-send the proposals along with the original application, form of undertaking under Form 12. Proposals were re-submitted on 26.05.2010. In subsequent proceedings in Rc.No.27456/2010/H2, dated 23.06.2010, the second respondent was informed that in view of Government Letter No.202, Labour and Employment Department, dated 08.10.2007, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds should be submitted within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and since the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment after three years, from the date of death of the government servant, her case cannot be considered, vide impugned order, dated 15.07.2010, the petitioner has been accordingly communicated. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.62, Labour and Employment Department, dated 19.07.2006, which clearly states that the application for compassionate appointment should be submitted within three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. He also submitted that in yet another G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.03.2007, directions have been issued to the effect that the time limit for compassionate appointment should be strictly followed. Citing the above Government Orders, he submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's case is proper. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the petitioner submitted another representation, dated 30.01.2011 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Cell, as well as to the second respondent, wherein the applicant has stated that due to family dispute, there was a delay in obtaining the legal heir certificate and therefore, delay of one month period, which occurred in submitting the application for employment assistance be condoned and the said application has been forwarded to the first respondent, vide proceedings, dated 05.08.2010 and is pending consideration with the first respondent. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Material on record disclose that the petitioner's father died on 31.07.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner was a minor at the time of her father's death. Application for employment assistance has been submitted on 01.09.2009. Pursuant to which, vide proceedings in Rc.No.4117/2009/H1, dated 07.01.2010, the second respondent has forwarded the death certificate, legal heir certificate, educational qualification certificate, certificate obtained in computer education, etc., to the first respondent and the same has been rejected by the impugned order. 10. Material on record further discloses that when the writ petitioner submitted another representation on 30.01.2011, stating that on account of the pendency of the Suit in O.S.No.442 of 2006, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, instituted by the mother of the deceased within two months from the date of death of the petitioner's father, there was a delay in getting the legal heir certificate and that the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner's mother only on 10.12.2008 and further submitted in the said representation that, in order to deprive the retiral benefits and employment assistance, her grandmother, onceagain filed a review petition and that the same was disposed on 26.08.2009 and only thereafter, the petitioner could obtain a legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur, the second respondent has forwarded the second representation to the first respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.4117/2009/H1, dated 05.08.2010. The contents of the letter, at Page 11 in the typed set of papers, are as follows: efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FoePh; tHA;fy; Jiw mDg;g[dh; bgWeh; jpU.f.Kj;Jfz;Z efuhl;rp eph;thf naf;Feh;, efuhl;rp Mizahsh; Brg;ghf;fk; gh { [ptpy;ypg[j;Jhh;. brd;id-5 e.f.vz;.4117/2010/vr;1 ehs; 05.08.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 ma;ah bghUs; fUiz mog;gilapyhd gzp epakd - gh { [ptpy;ypg[j;Jhh; efuhl;rp 31-07.2010k; Bjjp gzpapil fhykhd Xl;Ldh; jpU.gPl;lh; vd;gthpd; kfs; gP.bry;tp.bjurhs; gzp tHA;fBfhUjy; bjhlh;ghf. ghh;it. 1) bry;tp jpBuhrh j/bg.gPl;lh; vd;gthpd; kD ehs; 01.09.2009. 2) nt;tYtf nBj vz;zpl;l foj ehs; 07.01.2010. 3) nt;tYtf nBj vz;zpl;l foj ehs; 24.05.2010 (brd;id efuhl;rp eph;thf naf;Feh; mth;fSf;F Kfthpapl;lJ). 4) brd;id efuhl;rp eph;thf naf;Feh; mth;fspd; 23-06-2010k; Bjjpa foj vz; 27456/2010/vr;2. 5) nt;tYtf nBj vz;zpl;l foj ehs; 15.07.2010. 6) bry;tp jpBuhrh j/bg.(Byl;) gPl;lh; vd;gthpd; kD ehs; 02.08.2010. (khz;g[kpF Kjyikr;rh; jdpg;gphpt[ brd;id mth;fSf;F Kfthpapl;lJ). -------------- ghh;it 1y; fhZk; tpz;zg;gj;jpy; bry;tp jpBuhrh vd;gth; jdJ jfg;gdhy; jpU.B$.gPl;lh; vd;gth; jpUtpy;ypg[j;Jhh; efuhl;rpapy; Xl;Leuhf gzpahw;Wk; BghJ 31.07.2006k; Bjjp gzpapilBa nwe;J tpl;lhh; vdt[k; thhpRjhuuhfpa jdf;F fUzi mog;ilapy; gzp tHA;f BfhhpapUe;jhh;. md;dhUf;F thhpR mog;gilapy; nsepiy cjtpahsh; gzp epakdk; bra;a ghh;it 2y; fhZk; fUj;JU brd;id efuhl;rp eph;thf naf;Feh; mth;fSf;F mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ. Bkw;go fUj;JU ghh;it 3y; fhZk; fojg;go chpa MtzA;fs; Brh;j;J mDg;g[k; bghUl;L jpUg;gp mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ. ghh;it 3y; fhDk; fojk; }PKyk; Bkw;go fUj;JU chpa MtzA;fSld; brd;id efuhl;rp eph;thf naf;Feh; mth;fSf;F BkyDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ. ghh;it 4y; fhZk; brd;id efuhl;rp eph;thf naf;Feh; jpU.gPl;lh; vd;gth; nwe;J PKd;whz;LfSf;Fs;shf fUiz mog;gilapy; Btiyf;Bfhhp tpz;zg;gk; bra;ahjjhy; gzp tHA;f nayhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ. ghh;it 6y; fhZk; fojj;jpy; ;zg;gj;jpy; bry;tp jpBuhrh vd;gth; jdJ je;ijapd; thhpR bjhlh;ghf gh { [ptpy;ypg[j;Jhh; Kjd;ik khtl;l ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F (tHf;F vz;.442/06) eilbgw;W te;jjhft[k; Bkw;go tHf;fpd; jPh;g;g[ vA;fSf;F rhjfkhf tug;bgw;wJ (efy; nizf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ) Bkw;go jPh;g;gpid vjph;j;J vdJ ghl;o butpa { kD jhf;fy; bra;jhh;. mJt[k; vA;fS;fF rhjfkhfBt 26.08.2009y; jPh;g;g [ tHA;fg;gl;lJ. mjd; gpwBf fUiz mog;gilapy; Btiyf;F tpz;zg;gk; bra;Bjd;. vdJ je;ijahhpd; thhpR bjhlh;ghf ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F eilbgw;wjhy; chpa Beuj;jpy; fUiz mog;gilapy; Btiyf;F tpz;zg;gk; bra;tjpy; fhyjhkjk; Vw;gl;lJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 vd;gjhf bjhptpj;J mjd; nizg;g[fSld; chpa cj;jput[ Btz;o nj;Jld; nizj;J rkh;g;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ. md;dhUf;F epakdk; bra;tJ rk;g;ejkhd cj;jput[ gpwg;gpf;f Btz;Lkha; gzpt[ld; Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBw;d. Mizahsh; gh { [ptpy;ypg[j;Jhh; 11. At paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the second respondent has also stated that the petitioner's representation, dated 30.01.2011 is pending before the first respondent. Admittedly, though the first representation, dated 01.09.2009, has not been made within the stipulated period of three years, the second respondent, having considered the reasons for the delay in not submitting the application within a period of three years, has forwarded the representation submitted along with the judgment, dated 10.12.2008 made in the suit in O.S.No.442 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputtur and the order, dated 26.08.2009 in the review petition, legal heir certificate and other documents, to the first respondent for consideration. 12. On the above materials, though it cannot be said that there is a manifest illegality in rejecting the first application on the ground that it was not submitted within a period of three years, yet it could be seen that only after considering the reasons, stated supra, the second respondent has forwarded the representation, dated 30.01.2011, and it is stated to be pending consideration with the first respondent. 13. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 30.01.2011 on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the reasons stated in the subsequent representation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open to the petitioner to send a representation along with the copy of the order made in M.Uma v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), T.N.E.B., reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 644. 14.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. SKM/MPK Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AE] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1. The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. +1 cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate SR.No.25503. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.25583. W.P.(MD)No.4420 of 2011 Dated:01.08.2011 5P/5C RPB 25.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/