0

Madras High Court directs Public Health Department to consider compassionate appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Title: V. Priyadharsan. Vs.  The Government of Tamil Nadu.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.1563 of 2020.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Battu Devanand.

Facts:

The petitioner is the only son of his mother Late G.Usha Rani, who worked as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife in Government Primary Health Centre, Kottarakudi, who died in harness on 14.05.2012. On the date of death of his mother, the petitioner was only 14 years of old. The father of the petitioner was working as Driver. But he is unable to support the petitioner, since he has another wife and separate family. At the time of death of his mother, he was studying only 9th Standard and after his mother’s death, he was put in dark distress, as he depended on his mother emotionally and financially. After completion of +1, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.04.2015. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.10.2019 as a reminder by enclosing all relevant documents to all the respondents. But the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner. Against the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s claim for terminal benefits, family pension and compassionate appointment, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31203 of 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.11.2019 to consider the representations dated 06.04.2015 and 14.10.2019 of the petitioner. In pursuance to the same, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 stating that the request of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner is working as Driver in Government. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner contends that he is emotionally and financially depended on her mother, as his father is having separate family, cannot be brushed away in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents. However, as and when the father of the petitioner also issued No Objection Certificate to grant terminal benefits, pension and for appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, for the death of the petitioner’s mother, as he is the only legal heir of her, the reasons stated in the order impugned in the writ petition to reject the claim of the petitioner are irrational, illegal and unjust. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family tied over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it to get over the hard situation. In the present case, after sudden death of his mother, the petitioner has no support to survive at the age of 14 years. However, by doing some coolie works, he studied up to +1 and submitted application on 06.04.2015 within the time permitted to submit application seeking compassionate appointment. The respondents failed to consider the fact that the father of the petitioner is having another wife and separate family and the petitioner is the son of the second wife of his father. Without considering all these factual aspects, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner by order dated 24.12.2019, which is unjust and irrational. The respondents ought to have kept in mind that the scheme of compassionate ground appointment was introduced by the Government as a welfare measure to help the legal heirs of the deceased Government servants appreciating the services rendered by them for the Government.

The court allowed the petition by issuing the following directions:

  • The impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside.
  • The respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits for the death of the mother of the petitioner to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  • The respondents are further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in any suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

The Court held that in the present case, the respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. As such, the letter dated 24.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, is unsustainable and accordingly, it was set aside and directed the respondents to consider appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court names Classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:   MA.Ranjith.                                               … Petitioner
                                               Versus

The Director General of Police.                       … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 26.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND.

Citation: W.P. No.6901 of 2020.

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondent to consider the representation dated 14.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and for a consequential direction to the respondent to release the salary and benefits, which has to be paid to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

Facts:

The petitioner is the Inspector of Police working in Dharmapuri District. He contends that he has been discharging his duties with great honesty and due to his honest only, he had been transferred very often and he further submitted that he had been transferred nearly 39 times in his 20 years of service. He further contends that due to some high official issue, he had been transferred now and then and due to some higher official pressure and misadministration, his salary is kept hold for a long time. He also contends that he had submitted many representation to the administrative department about his pending salary, but no steps are taken till now. It is further stated by the petitioner that for four months i.e., from August to September 2019 salaries are also not paid. As he is totally depending on his salary, he is unable to manage his regular life and family. He also submits that his wife is suffering from cancer and he has to take care of her medical expenses and also his two children education and maintenance. In such circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

Issues:

  • Whether there was any violation ofright to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
  • Whether  the actionof the respondent is not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary?

Legal Analysis:

When an Inspector of Police cadre officer submits a representation to the Director General of Police, who is the head of the Police Department to the State, if the said representation did not see the light of the day and no action is initiated, it itself proves how the petitioner is being harassed. If the respondent requires any further information from the petitioner to consider his representation and to pass appropriate orders, it is for the respondent to intimate. The petitioner admittedly, such intimation is not issued to the petitioner by the respondent.
This is one of the classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country. Every employee, who discharges his duties honestly, he would expect payment of his salary regularly from the employer, without any unreasonable delay. The employee has to survive himself and he has to feed his family and also to take care of all necessities of his family members, from the salary, he is getting. In the present case, as the petitioner contends that his wife is suffering from cancer, definitely, he has to meet her medical expenses. Due to non payment of salary and non-consideration of his representation for four years i.e., from the year 2019, all the members of the family of the petitioner had suffered mentally and financially. Thereby, they are forced to suffer irreparable loss and hardships.

Judgement:

As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent has failed to discharge his duty to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 14.12.2019, which is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, irrational and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that in the present case, though notice was ordered in March 2020, no counter-affidavit was filed. The court on June 21 had directed the Government Advocate to get instructions with regard to the status of the representation filed by Ranjith. Upon perusing the status report filed by the Additional Advocate General, the court found that though some reasons were mentioned, the same seemed to have been invented to file the status report and that the representation had not been disposed of by the DGP. The court allowed the petition and directed the DGP to take appropriate action within a week. “In the present case, as the petitioner contends that his wife is suffering from cancer, definitely, he has to meet her medical expenses. Due to non-payment of salary and non-consideration of his representation for four years i.e., from the year 2019, all the members of the family of the petitioner had suffered mentally and financially. Thereby, they are forced to suffer irreparable loss and hardships,” said the court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the
respondent to examine the representation dated 14.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action within a period of one week from 26.06.2023.

Conclusion:

While providing relief to a Police Inspector with respect to his pending salary, the Madras High Court criticized the Director General of Police for n not considering the representation made by him in 2019. The action of the respondent is not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary and it is violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement