COMMISSIONER MARAKANNAM PANCHAYAT UNION MARAKKANAM Vs. D.SARAVANAN
LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-365
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 10,2019

Commissioner Marakannam Panchayat Union Marakkanam Appellant
VERSUS
D.Saravanan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.T.ASHA,J. - (1.) The Intra-Court appeals W.A.No.774 of 2017 is filed by the 3rd and 4th respondents and W.A.No.775 of 2017 is filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the Writ Petiton, challenging the order passed in W.P.No.17751 of 2007, in and by which the learned Judge has quashed the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made by the Writ petitioner for compassionate appointment by an order dated 16.06.1999 and directing the 1st respondent to consider afresh the representation made by the Writ petitioner dated 30.06.2003. The parties in these appeals are referred to in their same litigative status as in the Writ Petition.
(2.) The following chronology of dates and events are necessary for disposing of the above Writ Appeals: ? -? 06.01.1973 - The petitioner's mother, D.Emrose was appointed as a Maternity Assistant in Vaidapakkam Centre ? -? 15.08.1979 - D.Emrose dies leaving behind her surviving her mother and two sons, her husband having pre-deceased her. (The Writ petitioner was aged 7 years on the date of the death of his mother) ? -? 21.01.1992 - The Writ petitioner submits an application seeking compassionate appointment. ? -? 13.11.1998 - The 2nd respondent initmates the Writ petitioner that his name which is in seniority list No.157 would be considered in due course after getting instructions from the Government. Several representations are addressed to the authorities. ? -? 01.12.1997 - The 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent recommending that the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment be considered favourably. ? -? 12.05.1999 - the 1st respondent rejects the request made by the Writ petitioner and forwards the order to the Director Rural Development with a copy marked to the 2nd respondent. ? -? 16.06.1999 - The rejection order is communicated to the Writ petitioner. ? -? 21.06.2002 - The Writ petitioner addressed the 2nd respondent requesting him to consider his request for compassionate appointment (there is no mention made about the rejection). ? -? 30.06.2003 - Similar request was made by the Writ petitioner to the 1st respondent (once again the earlier order of rejection not mentioned). ? -? 2004 - The Writ petitioner seeks reconsideration of the order of rejection dated 16.06.1999 of the 2nd respondent and directing the 1st respondent to consider the appeal by filing O.A.No.1981 of 2004 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (The Writ petitioner does not refer to order dated 12.05.1999 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the request for compassionate appointment which order was communicated to him by the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 16.06.1999). This application was later transferred to the file of this Court on the abolition of the Tribunal and re-numbered as W.P.No.17751 of 2007 (T). ? -? 19.11.2014 - Order passed in W.P.No.17751 of 2007 (T). This Court allows the Writ Petition with a direction to the Government to provide compassionate appointment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. ? -? 10.07.2015 - These Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.774 and 775 of 2017) were filed.
(3.) The learned Judge has allowed the petition on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.120, did not prescribe any limitation for making a request for compassionate appointment made prior to 26.06.1995. Considering the fact that the Writ petitioner's request has been made as early as in the year 1992, the learned Judge was of the opinion that he should be given compassionate employment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.