M FRANCIS ROY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection issued by the fifth respondent, dated 15.4.2011 in respect of the claim of the Writ Petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner made a submission that the father of the Writ Petitioner was employed as Watchman in the fifth respondent/Office and passed away while in service, on 25.12000.The Petitioner had submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 15.10.2001. However, there was a delay on the part of the respondents in considering the application submitted by the Writ Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in the year 2005, the Assistant Executive Engineer has also communicated a letter stating that the case of the Writ Petitioner would be considered accordingly. Further, it is stated in the letter, dated 1.2005 that the Writ Petitioner had already employed on temporary basis for some time. Thus it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Writ Petitioner had engaged temporarily by the Respondents and he was awaiting for the permanent absorption in the regular sanctioned post on compassionate grounds.

(3.) Finally, the claim of the Writ Petitioner was rejected by the fifth respondent by proceedings, dated 15.4.2011 stating that the application was not submitted within the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The impugned order states that the Writ Petitioner has filed claimed that he his initial application on 15.10.2011 and that the said application was not available in the Office of the respondents and further there is no proof for receipt of the said application by the respondents. However, the application submitted by the Petitioner on 1.9.2006 was considered and the impugned order was passed on 15.4.2011 stating that the application was time barred. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner cites the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain .vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 9 SCC 195. However, in the case cited by the Writ Petitioner, the Honourable Supreme Court of India considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and passed an order and not delivered judgement settling the legal principles in this subject. The order passed by the Courts considering the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be declared as a binding precedent and in the above said case, in paragraph 6, the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that ''in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondent authorities to consider the application of the appellant''.