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


K. Nambirajan v/s The Divisional Engineer, (Constructions & Maintenance), Thoothukudi & Another

    W.P. (MD) No. 11826 of 2021
    Decided On, 03 March 2022
    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
    For the Petitioner: R. Balakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Sadhiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Kurippanai No.165/2017/A1 dated 18.11.2020 and quash the same and further directing the respondents to give employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds considering the pathetic situation of petitioner's family due to the death of petitioner's father Kandasamy on 07.04.2015.)

1. The order of rejection dated 18.11.2020 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The father of the writ petitioner namely Kandasamy was working as Road Worker and died on 07.04.2015, while he was in service.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that the mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application on 22.03.2017 for providing appointment on compassionate ground. However, the said application was not considered by the respondents. During the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, he was not eligible to seek appointment. On attaining the age of majority, on 01.01.2019, the petitioner submitted an application on 23.01.2019 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner on 22.03.2017 is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the mother of the writ petitioner crossed the age limit. Therefore, based on the application dated 22.03.2017, the respondents cannot provide appointment to the writ petitioner. There is no procedure for conversion of application under the scheme of compassionate appointment. Every application submitted by the legal heir is to be considered and there is no provision to entertain another application from another legal heir or for conversion of application submitted by the mother to the other legal heir namely daughters or sons.

5. This being the scope of the scheme of compassionate appointment and considering the fact that the petitioner is

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
aged about 20 years and he has to work hard and try to come out in his life by right means, this Court wishes the petitioner for his bright future. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R