w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



D. Kanchana v/s The Government of Tami Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PLC035742

Company & Directors' Information:- J J DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300WB1996PTC081491

Company & Directors' Information:- L N DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102ML1986PLC002590

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB1949PTC000515

Company & Directors' Information:- K K R DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1981PTC034258

Company & Directors' Information:- D P S DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1988PTC044797

Company & Directors' Information:- G RAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC058140

Company & Directors' Information:- R M RAJ AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1952PTC002146

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R RURAL INDIA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302TN2005PTC058249

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ & RAJ PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052055

    Writ Appeal No. 2617 of 2019 & C.M.P. No. 16821 of 2019

    Decided On, 29 January 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

    For the Appellant: Inthu Karunakaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: A. Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.13205 of 2015 on the file of this Court. )R. Subbiah, J.This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order of dismissal, dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13205 of 2015 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.2. The appellant has filed the said writ petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in Na.Ka.No.84671/2011/Podhu 1-4, dated 03.11.2014 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to provide compassionate appointment to her.3. (a) The appellant/writ petitioner’s father Late S .Dhanasekaran was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the second respondent. The appellant’s father died in harness on 15.02.2008 during the course of his service, leaving behind his widow, one son and two daughters. The appellant is the eldest daughter born to her parents. Subsequent to the death of their father, the appellant’s brother Late D. Veeradurai, was appointed as Office Assistant by the second respondent under compassionate grounds, vide order dated 04.06.2009. Unfortunately, within 18 months of such appointment, the appellant’s brother D. Veeradurai died on 07.11.2011 as a bachelor. Therefore, the appellant’s mother and two sisters have succeeded to the estate of his deceased brother.(b) The appellant’s mother is an illiterate person. The appellant is a physically challenged person. She has a daughter aged 8 years. It is stated by the appellant that her husband deserted her within few months of their marriage and she is staying with her widowed mother. Further, the appellant’s family had no source of income and therefore, subsequent to the death of her brother, the appellant’s mother D. Vanitha approached the second respondent and submitted an application dated 23.11.2011 to provide compassionate appointment to the appellant. Since the second respondent insisted for proof to show that the appellant was deserted by her husband, she had given a Police complaint on 11.02.2012 about her missing husband based on which a first information report was registered on 14.02.2012.(c) Based on the application submitted by the mother of the appellant seeking compassionate appointment, the second respondent, by a communication dated 10.09.2012, called upon the appellant’s mother to furnish certain documents, besides calling upon the appellant to submit a fresh application along with the required documents. Accordingly, the appellant’s mother has submitted another application dated 10.10.2012 to provide compassionate appointment for the appellant. Subsequently, the second respondent, by a communication dated 12.10.2012, directed the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk to cause an enquiry with respect to the plea of the appellant that she was deserted by her husband and to submit a Certificate of desertion to her. Accordingly, a Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam- Perambur Taluk stating that the appellant was deserted by her husband.(d) Even after producing all the required documents, there was no response in respect of the status of the application seeking compassionate appointment to the appellant/writ petitioner. While so, on 03.11.2014, the second respondent passed an order rejecting the first application dated 23.11.2011 stating that the appellant is not eligible for compassionate appointment since she had not been deserted by her husband on the date of demise of her brother as also on the date of submission of the first application. However, the second application, dated 10.10.2012 was not considered by the second respondent, though the same was taken on record and referred to in communications sent by the second respondent. According to the appellant, on the date of the second application, she was a deserted woman as per the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar but without considering the same, the second respondent has rejected her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, challenging the order of rejection dated 03.11.2014, the Writ Petition was filed by the appellant.4. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 29.08.2017, dismissed the writ petition by holding that already, appointment on compassionate ground was provided to the appellant-writ petitioner’s brother, and therefore, the question of granting compassionate appointment to the appellant-writ petitioner will not arise. That apart, the father of the appellant-writ petitioner died in the year 2008 and now, after a lapse of many years, the concession of appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the appellant for the second time. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.5. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that the appellant’s brother was unmarried at the time of his demise. He died leaving behind three dependants, namely his widowed mother and two sisters. The appellant is a physically challenged person and a deserted woman having a ten-year old daughter. As a sister of the unmarried brother, the appellant is entitled for compassionate appointment. In fact, her brother was appointed on compassionate grounds on account of the death of their father on 04.06.2009, but within a period of one and a half years, her brother died on 07.11.2011. The appellant was a deserted woman as her husband deserted her after few months of their marriage. The learned Single Judge, without considering all these aspects, had dismissed the Writ Petition as if the compassionate appointment cannot be provided for second time to the family member of the deceased government servant. In fact, there is no such provision in the scheme framed for appointment on compassionate appointment. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner invited the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.134, Labour and Employment Department, dated 22.10.1998 as well as the amendment issued to the said G.O. on 28.04.2010 in Letter in No.37455/Q2/2009-3 by the Labour and Employment (Q2) Department, to fortify his submission that as a sister of the unmarried brother, the appellant is entitled for compassionate appointment and thus, prayed for allowing the Writ Appeal.6. Countering the above submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant-writ petitioner’s mother made an application to provide appointment to the appellant on compassionate grounds on 23.11.2011 after the death of the appellant’s brother. At that time, her mother was requested to submit certain documents for consideration of appointment under compassionate grounds. On scrutiny of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, it was found that the appellant’s husband deserted her from 11.02.2012 as is evident from the FIR registered based on the appellant’s complaint. It means the appellant lived with her husband till 10.02.2012 and therefore, on the date of submitting her application for compassionate appointment on 23.11.2011, she was not deserted by her husband, and hence, she is not eligible to be considered as deserted woman.7. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that as per G.O.Ms.No.134, Labour and Employment Department, dated 22.10.1998 and also the amendment issued to the said G.O. by letter dated 28.04.2010, only near relatives of the unmarried brother is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is the further contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that on a perusal of the said Government Order and its amendment, it shows that the sister of the unmarried brother is not included in the list of near relatives of the deceased Government employee. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, absolutely, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.8. Keeping the submissions made on either side, we have carefully perused the materials available on record.9. Though very many contentions have been raised in the Writ Appeal, the only question that has to be decided in this Writ Appeal is as to whether, as a sister of the unmarried brother, the appellant is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.10. As observed by the learned Single Judge, compassionate appointment cannot be sought for as a matter of right. It is a scheme devised by the Government to help the needy legal heirs whose lives are in distress on the death of the Government servant. In this regard, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, wherein the categories of the legal heirs/near relatives of the deceased Government servant, who are eligible for compassionate ground appointment, have been clearly spelt out by the Government. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds has to be in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. On a perusal of the latest G.O. in G.O.(Ms).No.18, stated above, it is clear that the sister of the unmarried brother is not included in the category of near relatives of the deceased Government servant, who are eligible for compassionate appointment. Though the writ petitioner had submitted that she will fall within the category of deserted woman, based on the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, this Certificate was issued on the basis of the FIR registered by the Police on 14.02.2012, which is subsequent to the first application made by the writ petitioner’s mother for providing the appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said certificate issued by the Tahsildar. In fact, as per the said certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the writ petitioner was deserted by her husband only on 11.02.2012. Under such circumstances, absolutely we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.11. We wish to observe that appointment on compassionate grounds, as observed by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, is to be made only to relieve the suffering of the family members of the deceased from the immediate financial distress. The intention behind appointing a person on compassionate ground is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-winner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The reason for compassionate appointment, according to the Government, is to ameliorate the grievance of the family whose breadwinner died in harness and in view of the indigent circumstances prevailing at the time of death. Thus, one has to understand that the compassionate appointment is not a bounty given by the Government and it is only to relieve the financial stress of the bereaved family on account of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the death of a Government servant in harness. Therefore, the compassionate appointment will be considered by the Government in deserving cases based on the Rules existing as on date and not to leave the person seeking compassionate appointment in lurch, but only to help him.12. In the present case, from a perusal of the records, we find that on the date of the death of the deceased Government servant, the appellant’s brother was given an order of appointment on compassionate grounds, but within 18 months of such appointment, the brother of the appellant died. Thereafter, for the second time, an appointment on compassionate ground was sought. As per the orders of the Government, the appellant cannot be construed as a near relative of her brother who died after his appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, as on the death of the brother of the appellant, the appellant herein was living with her husband and is not a deserted woman. Looking at from any angle, the appellant/writ petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment.13. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
O R