L. PREETHA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the Appellant, viz., Lingasamy, who was employed as Superintendent in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, died in harness on 26/5/2008, leaving his wife, mother, son and daughter. The application for compassionate appointment made on 3/12/2008 by Praveenraj, son of the deceased, was accepted and he was given appointment as Grade-II Police Constable and he reported for duty on 31/1/2011 and underwent physical training till 20/2/2011. However, as he had some difficulty in walking due to a leg injury sustained during his school days, he had resigned the job on 21/2/2011, which was accepted. Thereafter the wife of the said deceased Lingasamy made an application dtd. 22/6/2011 for compassionate appointment, it was rejected on the ground that it was made beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The Appellant, who is the daughter of deceased Lingasamy, then made an application on 6/6/2018 for compassionate appointment and as no orders were passed on the same, she filed W.P. (MD) No. 17984 of 2018 seeking a direction to consider and pass orders for her appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the Appellant, she was married on 18/3/2012 and her husband had deserted her shortly after marriage, leaving behind a female child apart from her mother. It is further stated that her brother had also got married and he is living separately.

(2.) The Learned Judge who heard the Writ Petition, after referring to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relating to compassionate appointment in the decision in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar -vs- Union of India [(2011) 4 SCC 209], and the decision in L. Mohanasundaram -vs- Joint Director of School Education (order dtd. 6/2/2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 16402 of 2012), held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the concerned person has to apply for the same with reasonable time and finding that there was no merits in the Writ Petition, dismissed the same by order dtd. 14/8/2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. G.R. Satish, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. D. Muruganantham, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.