LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-2

MANIKANDA PRABU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On January 03, 2023
Manikanda Prabu Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order, dtd. 19/1/2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2176 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the request of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.

(2.) According to the appellant, his father Kodhandapani was working as Village Administrative Officer in D.Punaasal Village. Initially, Kodhandapani married one Paranjothi and out of the said wedlock, a male child Balasankar was born to them. Balasankar is a mentally retarded person. Subsequently, Paranjothi died and after her death, Kodhandapani married one Saradhavalli in the year 1993 and out of the said wedlock, a female child Balajothi and a male child Manikanda Prabu (appellant herein) were born to them. Subsequently, Kodhandapani died in harness on 5/5/2008, while he was in service. At the time of death of Kodhandapani, the appellant was a minor and therefore, his mother Saradhavalli made an application dtd. 2/5/2011 to the first respondent seeking appointment to her son Manikanda Prabu, on compassionate grounds. However, the said application was rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4.24040/2011, dtd. 30/7/2015. Challenging the same, Manikanda Prabu filed W.P.(MD) No.2176 of 2017. The Writ Court, after hearing both sides, by order dtd. 19/1/2021 dismissed the writ petition, on the grounds that the appellant for whom his mother sought for appointment on compassionate grounds was minor and the application was not made immediately after the date of her husband. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, even though attacked the order passed by the Writ Court on several grounds, strenuously contended that the respondents have rejected the application for compassionate appointment with a delay of four years and though at the time of making application the appellant was minor, at the time of passing of the order rejecting the application, he became major and therefore, he may be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.