Government Order in the case of compassionate ground appointment may be accepted from another legal heir of the deceased Government servant – Madras High Court

W.A. No.11221IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.12.2021CORAM :THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADWrit Appeal No.11221G.G.Sharma...AppellantVs. 1.The Director of School Education DPI Complex College Road Chennai 600 006.2.The Chief Education Officer Salem District Salem3.The District Education Officer Sankagiri Salem District4.The Headmaster Government High School Kaveripuram Post Mettur Taluk Salem District....RespondentsPrayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.07.2020 made in W.P.No.96520.For Appellant : Mr.S.Doraisamy for Mr.V.ElangovanFor Respondents: Ms.Mythereya Chandra Special Government PleaderJUDGMENTPage No. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A. No.11221(Delivered by M. DURAISWAMY J.) Challenging the order dated 27.07.2020 passed in W.P. No.96520 the writ petitioner has filed the above writ appeal. 2. The appellant has filed the writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of rejection dated 26.05.2020 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.3. It is not in dispute that the father of the appellant had died in harness on 18.07.2001 and that his mother made an application for compassionate appointment on 29.10.2001. Subsequently the said application was remanded back to the applicant namely Tmt.Selvakumari for want of additional details. Thereafter the writ petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 21.03.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. 4. The learned single Judge taking into consideration the submission made by both the parties dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same the above writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.5. On a careful consideration of the materials available it could be Page No. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A. No.11221seen that the appellant s mother submitted her application seeking for compassionate appointment on 29.10.2001. In the order impugned in the writ petition the first respondent has stated that the application submitted by the mother of the appellant was remanded back to her for want of additional details. Instead of re presenting the application the appellant submitted a fresh application after a lapse of 16 years. It is settled law that an application seeking for compassionate appointment should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee.6. Mr.S.Doraisamy learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per G.O.No.18 Labour and EmploymentDepartment dated 23.01.2020 if the applicantdied after applying for compassionate ground appointment an alternative application may be accepted from the another legal heir of the deceased Government servant subject to the conditions prescribed for compassionate ground appointment and therefore the application submitted by the appellant should have been accepted by the respondent. 7. But on a careful perusal of the said Government Order it is clear that the said Government Order is applicable only in the case of the applicant who is the legal heir of the deceased Government servant had died after applying for compassionate ground appointment. In such Page No. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A. No.11221circumstances alternatively an application may be accepted from another legal heir of the deceased Government servant. In the case on hand the mother of the appellant namely Tmt.Selvakumari is very much alive and therefore the said Government Order cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant.7. So far as the remand of the application to Tmt.Selvakumari seeking for additional details is concerned the appellant has not disputed the said contention in the affidavit filed in support of his writ petition. In these circumstances the application submitted by the appellant after a lapse of 16 years cannot be considered. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.8. Accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs.[J.S.N.P. J.]17.12.2021AsrIndex: Yes NoInternet: Yes To1.The Director of School EducationPage No. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A. No.11221 DPI Complex College Road Chennai 600 006.2.The Chief Education Officer Salem District Salem3.The District Education Officer Sankagiri Salem District4.The Headmaster Government High School Kaveripuram Post Mettur Taluk Salem District.Page No. https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.A. No.11221M. DURAISWAMY J.and J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD J.AsrWrit Appeal No.11221 17.12.2021Page No. 

Summary: “The application submitted by the appellant after a lapse of 16 years, cannot be considered”. These were stated by double bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy &amp; Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad in the case of G.G.Sharma v. The Director of School Education &amp; Ors. (W.A. No.1127 of 2021) The father of the appellant had died in harness on 18.07.2001 and that his mother made an application for compassionate appointment on 29.10.2001. Subsequently, the said application was remanded back to the applicant, namely Tmt. Selvakumari, for want of additional details. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 21.03.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration the submission made by both the parties, dismissed the writ petition. Stating that the appellant submitted a fresh application after a lapse of 16 years. It is settled law that an application seeking for compassionate appointment should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, as per G.O. (Ms) No.18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020, if the applicant (legal heir of the deceased Government Servant) died after applying for compassionate ground appointment, an alternative application may be accepted from the another legal heir of the deceased Government servant, subject to the conditions prescribed for compassionate ground appointment and therefore, the application submitted by the appellant should have been accepted by the respondent. The double bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy &amp; Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad on a careful perusal of the said Government Order dismissed the Writ Appeal and stated that it is clear that the said Government Order is applicable only in the case of the applicant, who is the legal heir of the deceased Government servant had died after applying for compassionate ground appointment. In such circumstances, alternatively an application may be accepted from another legal heir of the deceased Government servant. In the case on hand, the mother of the appellant, namely Tmt.Selvakumari, is very much alive and therefore, the said Government Order, cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant. So far as the remand of the application to Tmt.Selvakumari seeking for additional details is concerned, the appellant has not disputed the said contention in the affidavit filed in support of his writ petition. In these circumstances, the application submitted by the appellant after a lapse of 16 years, cannot be considered. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Click here to read the judgement