Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Selvi N Abirami vs The Director Of Agriculture ( Marketing ) Office Of Agricultural Marketing And Others

Madras High Court|24 November, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No.26692 of 2005
Selvi N.Abirami ...Petitioner vs.
1. The Director of Agriculture (Marketing) Office of Agricultural Marketing, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Assistant Director of Agriculture (Marketing) Coimbatore. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post according to the qualification of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the respondent Department.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Balamurugan Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition had sought for appointment in the respondent Department on compassionate grounds. The petitioner's mother Tmt.Senthilkumari was employed http://www.judis.nic.in with the respondents in the Agricultural Department and she was working as a Junior Assistant. According to the petitioner, she was the sole bread winner of the family. The petitioner's mother died on 03.09.1994. After the demise of her mother, there was no earning member in the family and that they were put into serious hardships and sufferings.
2. According to the petitioner, at the time of her mother's death, she was only 15 years old. She was studying in the School. Immediately, after the death of her mother, the petitioner made a representation on 29.09.1994, seeking appointment in the respondent Department on compassionate grounds. However, the said representation was returned by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner is required to reach the age of majority for her to seek employment on compassionate grounds.
3. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she pursued her studies and completed her graduation in B.Sc., degree and she has also qualified in Typewriting both in English and Tamil and made herself qualified for suitable employment with the respondent. According to the petitioner, she belongs to Backward Community. The petitioner claims that there is no source of income to the family and her father is not employed anywhere due http://www.judis.nic.into his health condition. After completing the age of 18, the petitioner has made one more representation to the 1st respondent on 10.08.2001, seeking employment on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of her mother during the course of her employment on 03.09.1994. Once again, the second respondent returned the representation dated 10.08.2001, for certain compliances to be made by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 17.08.2001 for processing the representation. The petitioner submits that she complied with all the requirements of the respondents and resubmitted the application. The petitioner submits that along with her representation, a non-employment certificate issued in favour of her father by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore, to facilitate her appointment on compassionate grounds was also submitted to the respondents.
4. That apart, her father also gave a representation setting out the details that he was aged more than 59 years and because of his health condition and his age, he was unable to secure any employment and thereby made a request to give appointment on compassionate grounds for his daughter. Subsequently, the petitioner also made a representation on 11.07.2005 to the respondents, requesting appointment on compassionate grounds by enclosing all the required documents and furnishing the necessary details. However, the second http://www.judis.nic.inrespondent has returned the same by proceedings dated 21.07.2005, stating that there is a ban for appointment on compassionate grounds and requested the petitioner to make an application after the removal of the ban.
5. According to the petitioner, there are several vacancies in the respondent Department for the post of Junior Assistant for which she is fully qualified. According to the petitioner, any delay by the respondents in making the compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner would virtually put the family in streets causing grave hardship to them.
6. The respondents have also filed their counter affidavit and have stated that there are laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, by G.O.Ms.No.212 P&A.R Department, dated 29.11.2001, Government of Tamil Nadu had completely imposed ban of filling the vacant posts through compassionate appointments. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not take any steps from the year 1997 till 12.07.2005 and only after the lapse of more than 10 years, after she attained majority, she has resubmitted her representation dated 11.07.2005, which was received by the second respondent on 13.07.2005.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7. Further, the respondents have stated that in view of the ban imposed under the aforesaid G.O., the representation of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds could not be considered. Further, according to the respondents, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the father of the petitioner and the husband of the deceased Senthilkumari was employed in Chinthamani Co-operative Super Market, Coimbatore. Since the petitioner's father was employed when her mother died in harness, the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds, as per G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment, dated 02.05.1981. According to the respondents, this fact was completely suppressed and this was not disclosed by the petitioner.
8. Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Muthu Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ban imposed vide G.O.Ms.No.212 P&A.R Department, dated 29.11.2001, making compassionate appointment has now been lifted and therefore, there is now no bar for the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. He produced http://www.judis.nic.inG.O.Ms.No.14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 07.02.2006, by which the ban imposed earlier was lifted.
10. The learned Government Advocate submits that the relief sought for in the writ petition seeking direction to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post according to the qualification of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the respondents Department cannot be granted, that too, after a long passage of time. The petitioner's mother died on 03.09.1994 and writ petition was filed in the year 2005 and now after a lapse of more than 22 years, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. This Court also agrees that a positive direction for appointment cannot be granted by this Court after the long passage of time. Instead the only moulded relief, this Court can grant in view of the lifting of the ban on compassionate appointments is to direct the respondents to consider the fresh representation, if any, submitted by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her mother in harness on 03.09.1994.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the counter filed by the respondents, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent http://www.judis.nic.inwithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order seeking employment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her mother Tmt.Senthilkumari, in harness on 03.09.1994 and the first respondent is directed to consider the fresh representation, if any, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, subject to the satisfaction of all the requirements for compassionate ground appointment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh representation submitted by the petitioner.
12. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
24.11.2017 Speaking order Index: Yes Internet: Yes pam http://www.judis.nic.in ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Pam W.P.No.26692 of 2005
24.11.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Selvi N Abirami vs The Director Of Agriculture ( Marketing ) Office Of Agricultural Marketing And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
24 November, 2017
Judges
  • Abdul Quddhose