“The application submitted by the appellant after a lapse of 16 years, cannot be considered”. These were stated by double bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy & Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad in the case of G.G.Sharma v. The Director of School Education & Ors. (W.A. No.1127 of 2021)
The father of the appellant had died in harness on 18.07.2001 and that his mother made an application for compassionate appointment on 29.10.2001. Subsequently, the said application was remanded back to the applicant, namely Tmt. Selvakumari, for want of additional details. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 21.03.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration the submission made by both the parties, dismissed the writ petition. Stating that the appellant submitted a fresh application after a lapse of 16 years. It is settled law that an application seeking for compassionate appointment should be made within three years from the date of death of the employee.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, as per G.O. (Ms) No.18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020, if the applicant (legal heir of the deceased Government Servant) died after applying for compassionate ground appointment, an alternative application may be accepted from the another legal heir of the deceased Government servant, subject to the conditions prescribed for compassionate ground appointment and therefore, the application submitted by the appellant should have been accepted by the respondent.
The double bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy & Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad on a careful perusal of the said Government Order dismissed the Writ Appeal and stated that it is clear that the said Government Order is applicable only in the case of the applicant, who is the legal heir of the deceased Government servant had died after applying for compassionate ground appointment. In such circumstances, alternatively an application may be accepted from another legal heir of the deceased Government servant. In the case on hand, the mother of the appellant, namely Tmt.Selvakumari, is very much alive and therefore, the said Government Order, cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant.
So far as the remand of the application to Tmt.Selvakumari seeking for additional details is concerned, the appellant has not disputed the said contention in the affidavit filed in support of his writ petition. In these circumstances, the application submitted by the appellant after a lapse of 16 years, cannot be considered. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
Judgement reviewed by Himanshu Ranjan