G. Rengarajan vs The State of Tamilnadu and Others

K. Venkataraman, J.—By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

The Petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings of the fourth Respondent, dated 22.07.2009 and 07.12.2009 rejecting the request of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

The short matrix of the matter set out in the affidavit of the Petitioner in nutshell is stated hereunder:

His father was working as a Craft Teacher in Maniankurichi Panchayat Union Middle School situate at Marungakurichi Union, Manaparai Taluk. He died on 28.06.1987. He left his mother, namely, Dhanalakshmi, the Petitioner, the eldest male member of the family, his younger sisters and brother. His mother is totally uneducated and hence the Petitioner requested the Respondents on 25.01.1990 for providing suitable post. Due to the sudden, unexpected demise of his father, the entire family was put into great financial and mental hardship.

3.1. The Petitioner was aged about 13 years at the time of his father''s death. In the year 1992, he has completed his twelfth standard. On 11.09.1997, the third Respondent by his proceeding informed the Petitioner that as and when the list of seniority in compassionate appointment reaches, he will be considered. He has further directed the fourth Respondent that if any memorandum was not submitted on behalf of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the same could be forwarded to him immediately.

3.2. However, on 24.04.2006, the third Respondent has returned his request for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that certain defects have been noted. Immediately, the Petitioner rectified the same and resubmitted to the third Respondent. On 12.07.2002, the fourth Respondent informed the Petitioner that on receipt of the particulars from the fifth Respondent, necessary orders could be passed on his request for appointment on compassionate ground.

3.3. The fifth Respondent on 20.09.2002 sent a communication to the District Collector, Trichy, informing him that since there was a ban for new appointment, no action has been taken for appointing the Petitioner on compassionate ground.

3.4. While so, on 11.10.2007, the fourth Respondent has erroneously rejected the request for appointment on compassionate ground stating that when no request for appointment was sought for by the wife of the deceased, there is no ground made out for seeking appointment to the other legal heirs, which shows that the family is not living under poverty. Again on 29.10.2007, the fourth Respondent has informed his mother that in respect of compassionate appointment to the Petitioner, proposal has been forwarded to the second Respondent. Thereafter, the fourth Respondent has sent a communication, dated 26.06.2008, to the Petitioner to furnish the details, which was sought for by him. The Petitioner also complied with the said request. However, on 22.07.2009, the fourth Respondent rejected the request of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that the original application submitted by the Petitioner on 25.01.1990 was not received at all. The second reason that has been stated is that the copy of the first page of service record of the deceased employee and copy of the requisition of service have not been enclosed. The third reason that was cited is that as per G.O. Ms. No. 202 Labour and Employment Department, dated 08.01.2007, the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground has to be made within three years from the date of death of the Government employee. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent a detailed appeal to the first and second Respondents.

3.5. While so, by proceeding, dated 07.12.2009, the fourth Respondent has sent a communication to the fifth Respondent, earmarking a copy to the Petitioner, rejecting the request of the Petitioner on two grounds, namely, the request for appointment on compassionate ground was made after seven years and hence the same cannot be considered as per G.O. Ms. No. 202 Labour and Employment Department dated 08.01.2007. The second reason that has been set out therein was that the Petitioner has completed only 13 years of age at the time of death of his father. Hence, there is no need to reserve one post vacant, till he attains majority. The Petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court challenging those proceedings.

At the time of argument, I have directed the Petitioner to produce the income certificate from the concerned Tahsildar to show that the present position of the Petitioner in his family. A certificate, dated 14.04.2011, of the Zonal Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk has been produced, wherein, it shows that the annual income of the Petitioner is only Rs. 24,000/-.

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the fourth Respondent. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner''s father died on 28.06.1987 and an application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted only on 01.08.1994, i.e., after a lapse of seven years from the date of death of the father. Therefore, as per Government letter, dated 08.10.2007, the Petitioner could not be appointed since the claim was made after three years from the date of the death of his father. Secondly, it is stated that the Petitioner has completed only 13 years at the time, when the father died and hence, the Petitioner cannot, on attaining the majority, seek appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

On the basis of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

The facts which are not disputed are that the Petitioner''s father one Govindan was working as a Craft Teacher in the Maniankurichi Panchayat Union Middle School situate at Marungakurichi Union, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy Distric. It is also not in dispute that he died on 28.06.1987. The Petitioner seems to have made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 25.01.1990. The proceeding of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Trichy, dated 29.04.2007, discloses that the Petitioner did in fact submitted a representation on 25.01.1990 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The said proceeding is enclosed in the typed set of papers at Page No. 21. In hat there is a reference about the said application made by the Petitioner dated 25.01.1990. While so, it cannot be contended on the side of the Respondents that the Petitioner has not made any application on 25.01.1990 and the application was made only on 01.08.1994.

In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner seems to have made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 25.01.1990. However, it has to be seen that the Petitioner at the time of making an application was only 13 years and thereafter after attaining the majority, he has again approached the Respondents with a request to appoint him on compassionate ground. All along the Respondents 3 and 4 were sending letter after letter to the Petitioner asking to furnish certain particulars. In fact, in those letters, the Petitioner has been promised that he will be provided with employment on compassionate ground. Thus, the Respondents 3 and 4 have made the Petitioner to believe that he will be provided job on compassionate ground. While so, the Respondents now cannot turn down and say that he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, on the ground that he has not made an application within three years and that he was aged about only 13 years, when he made an application. The communication sent by the third and fourth Respondents promising the Petitioner to provide him employment has been filed in the typed set of papers along with the writ petition. Though I am of the considered view that the Respondents 3 and 4 were prolonging the matter in one pretext or other, at the same time promising the Petitioner that he would be provided with employment on compassionate ground, they have not provided any employment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground.

In similar circumstances, this Court in the judgment reported in Mohanambal Vs. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram District and Others, has held that such rejection is bad. The learned Judge has considered, at length, the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court and has held that the case of the Petitioner thereon has to be considered. Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the order made thereunder is usefully extracted hereunder:

Here in this case, the Petitioner''s mother applied for compassionate appointment within one year and she was not given appointment due to want of minimum qualification of 8th standard and the Petitioner being the only other legal heir, pursuing the matter and agitating her right for all these years. In the light of the present financial status of the Petitioner, the decision in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar (supra) applies to thefactsofthiscase.

In view of the above findings, applying the above cited judgments to the facts of this case, the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the income certificate produced from the Tahsildar, Ambattur, dated 23.11.2010 and pass a revised orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and considering the judgment referred to above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the fourth Respondent dated 22.07.2009 and the subsequent order dated 07.12.2009 and the Writ Petition stands allowed. The Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the discussions made above and also in the light of the income certificate produced from the Tahsildar, Manapparai Zone, Manapparai Taluk and pass a revised order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.