(Prayer in W.P.No.1165 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent made on proceedings in NA.KA.No.A3/112/6709/2017, dated 11.10.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

In W.P.No.26124 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent by Proceedings in NA.KA.No.A3/112/6709/2017 dated 11.10.2018 and quash the same as illegal incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the Respondents to give appointed to the petitioner on compassionate ground.)

Common Order:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and the relief sought for in both the writ petitions is also one and the same i.e., seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

3. The brief case of the petitioner is that her father late Chinnappan was appointed as a Cleaner in the 2nd respondent on 02.08.1986 and his services were regularized by the 1st respondent with effect from 01.08.2009 based on G.O.Ms.No.653, (Home 15), Department, dated 07.08.2009 under the proceedings issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) in Na.Ka.No.120710 / NGP 2 (3) / 2009, dated 07.10.2009, as he had completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006; and that on regularisation, her father has been fixed in the time scale of pay and was also granted Grade Pay with effect from 01.08.2009.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that her father died suddenly on 28.04.2014 while in service; that the petitioner being one of the legal heir, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 28.03.2017 by enclosing there with all the Certificates required; that the 1st respondent by order dated 11.10.2018, rejected the request made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment based on the Government letter dated 28.06.2017 and the Head Officer circular dated 02.08.2018 on the ground that her father’s services were not regularised in regular time scale of pay even though he was placed in time scale of pay with grade increments, which action it is contended as highly illegal.

5. The 1st respondent in W.P.No.1165 of 2019 had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and also on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

6. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.26124 of 2019 had also filed a counter affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of other respondents in the said writ petition.

7. The respondents by the counter affidavits filed in the respective writ petitions, contended that the petitioner’s father late Chinnappan was not appointed on 02.08.1986 in the post of Cleaner, as claimed, but had joined as daily wage labour for part time Sweeping and Cleaning work in the Police Station; that considering the service provided by him for a long time, his services were regularised on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.653, (Home 15), Department, dated 07.08.2009; that prior to regularisation, he was only on part time basis; and that after regularization, he was appointed purely on temporary basis as Police Station ‘Cleaner’ and granted non Standard time scale with Grade Pay of Rs.300/-.

8. The respondents by the counter affidavit contended that the granting of non Standard time Scale, cannot be equated with regular time scale pay; and that while regularizing services of the petitioner and granting non standard time scale, it had been made clear that in case of any vacancy arising, no one should be appointed in such vacancies; and thus, the petitioner is not eligible for being granted for compassionate appointment.

9. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the petitioner is also not eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground as she is the daughter of the second wife of late Chinnappan; and that the deceased Chinnappan did not get entered his second wife or petitioner’s name in the Service book when his services were regularized, though on a non standard time scale with effect from 01.08.2009, for the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner.

10. The respondents by the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.26124 of 2019 further contended that the petitioner has filed subject writ petition by giving false particulars like the petitioner approaching this Court already by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.1165 of 2019 seeking same relief and the said writ petition pending on the file of this Court for consideration. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the writ petitions.

11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner while approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.26124 of 2019, had on oath stated that this is the first writ petition being filed by her before this Court and there is no other case before any other forum as to the same cause of action.

12. Admittedly, the said statement made by the petitioner at the time of filing of W.P.No.26124 of 2019 i.e., on 28.08.2019 is an incorrect and false statement made on oath.

13. It is also to be noted that it is not too long ago, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1165 of 2019 which was filed on 17.12.2018, to claim of having forgotten or feign ignorance of the earlier writ petition.

14. The petitioner having approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.1165 of 2019 and this Court having ordered notice therein on 24.01.2019, took a chance by filing another writ petition through another counsel seeking the same relief as sought for in the earlier writ petition.

15. This conduct of the petitioner in approaching the Court by filing multiple writ petitions for the same relief through different counsels and also suppressing the fact of the earlier writ petition, only reflects the conduct of the petitioner, to secure order from this Court in one way or the other, which practice should not only be encouraged, but is to be deprecated. The petitioner not only approached this Court by filing two writ petitions through two different counsels, but also continued to pursue the said writ petitions till date even after the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.26124 of 2019, having stated the petitioner having approached this Court by another writ petition earlier. This only goes to show the scant respect the petitioner has, while knocking the doors of temple of justice.

16. If such kind of practices are allowed to go scot-free, each after being noticed by the Court, would not only result in dignity and majesty of the Court being called in question, which cannot and should not be allowed. A litigant like the petitioner seeking to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is also is required to come clean and not with soiled hand.

17. Since, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner having approached this Court by filing second writ petition, suppressing the fact of she having approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition and the said writ is pending consideration and continuing to pursue both the writ petitions parallelly, would disentitle her from being granted any relief, as the petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands and having resorted to suppression.

18. It is a settled position of law that a litigant who invokes the equity jurisdiction of this Court should not resort to suppression and has to make true and complete disclosure. Since, the conduct of the petitioner as detailed herein above, shows that the petitioner having resorted to suppression, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the petitioner on merits.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions, had deprecated the practice of a litigant approaching the Court resorting to suppression. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D.Sharma Vs. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] held that:

                   “34.The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.”

20. The judgment of K.D.Sharma (cited supra) was followed in ABCD Vs. Union of India [(2020) 2 SCC 52].

21. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that where Writ Petitions are filed in the Court by resorting to suppression, the Court should not hesitate to impose cost in order to avoid such practices being adopted.(See - (2013) 2 SCC 398 – Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.)

22. By applying law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, to the facts of the present case, since the petitioner had not only resorted to suppression of earlier writ petition, seeking same relief, but having continued to pursue the same till date, thought different counsels, this Court is of the view that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression and approaching this Court with unclean hands.

23. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Madras High Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.