Madras High Court
S.Ramu vs The District Collector on 6 December, 2021
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
S.Ramu .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
The Office of the District Collector,
Vellore District.
2.The Sub-Collector,
The Office of the District Collector,
Ranipet, Vellore District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Arakonam, Vellore District.
4.Rathinam .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the appointment
of the 4th respondent as Thakolam Village Assistant as null and void and
consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment
under compassionate ground with all consequential benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu
For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandha Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner, challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent as
Village Assistant and also for a direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate ground with all
consequential benefits, has filed the present writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was employed as Village
Assistant in Thakolam Village and he died on 16.05.1992 while in service,
leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and two sisters as his legal heirs. At
the time of demise of petitioner's father, the petitioner was studying 10th
standard and a minor and therefore, he could not seek for compassionate
ground appointment. The representations made by his mother, seeking
compassionate ground appointment for her or to his elder sister who had
completed 10th standard, were also not considered by the first respondent.
However, one Rathinam, claiming as brother-in-law of the petitioner's father,
seems to have applied as a legal heir for compassionate appointment and was
appointed on 28.07.1992 as Sipanthi in the Thakolam Villge. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
appointment of said Rathinam was also not informed to the petitioner's family
and after attaining majority on 21.07.1998, the petitioner made an application
to the first respondent and the petitioner's mother also made application to the
first respondent seeking appointment under compassionate ground and after
repeated follow up, finally the petitioner received an order dated 20.12.2007,
impugned herein, from the first respondent admitting that the fourth
respondent was appointed on compassionate ground, since he applied to the
vacancy arose due to the death of his father in the appropriate time and he
was found eligible with all qualifications. Challenging the aforesaid action of
the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reported that he has no
instructions from the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
would submit that the fourth respondent was appointed not only based on the
fact that he being the brother-in-law of the deceased but also based on his
qualification and eligibility criteria for the said post at the relevant point of
time and therefore, the claim of the petitioner, challenging the appointment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
the fourth respondent, is unsustainable and prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner's father late Sundaram died on 16.05.1992
while in service and since the petitioner was studying 10th Standard and minor
at that time, he could not apply for compassionate appointment and after
attaining majority, he submitted the application on 21.07.1998, after the
prescribed period of three years. It is the claim of the petitioner that the
fourth respondent, being the brother-in-law of the deceased, seems to have
applied as the legal heir of the deceased and obtained compassionate ground
appointment, vide impugned order of the first respondent.
6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent
would disclose that as per the Government Rules prevalent, the posts of
Village Assistant can be filled up based on recommendation from
Employment Exchange, based on education qualification and since the
petitioner did not register his educational qualifications with the jurisdictional
Employment Exchange, he was deemed to be unfit for oral interview. It is
further disclosed in the impugned order that the petitioner's father worked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
only as part time Grama Sippandi and the recruitment rules as in vogue from
01.06.1995 cannot be made applicable to the permanent post of Village
Assistant and as per the instructions from the Government, for the permanent
post of Village Assistant, compassionate ground appointment is not feasible of
consideration. The impugned order further disclosed that the fourth
respondent was appointed as Thakolam Village Assistant not only based on
the fact that he being the brother-in-law of the deceased, but also he
possessed requisite educational qualification and eligibility criteria and no one
was available to the said post except the fourth respondent at the relevant
point of time.
7. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid reasoning given by the
first respondent in the impugned order is perfectly valid and finds no reason
to interfere.
8. Further, the object of giving compassionate ground appointment is to
mitigate the immediate sudden financial crisis caused to the family of the
deceased on account of demise of the Government Servant. It is useful to
refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“The whole object of granting compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a
member of such family a post much less a post for
post held by the deceased. What is further, mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
Government or the public authority concerned has
to examine the financial condition of the family of
the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but
for the provision of employment, the family will not
be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered
to the eligible member of the family.”
9. In Bhawani Prasad Sankar vs. Union of India and Others [2011
(3) LLN 37 (SC)], the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
“(i) Compassionate employment cannot be
made in the absence of Rules or Regulations issued
by the Government or a Public Authority. The request
is to be considered strictly in accordance with the
governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left
with any authority to make Compassionate
Appointment dehors the Scheme.
(ii) ...
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground
is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on
account of the death or medical invalidation of the
breadwinner while in service. Therefore,
compassionate employment cannot be granted as a
matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the
financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
employee's family at the time of his death or
incapacity, as the case may be.”
10. In State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Parkash Chand
[(2019) 4 SCC 285], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“8.The High Court while deciding issue (ix)
has relied upon the decision of this Court in
Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC [(2005) 10 SCC
289] more specifically on the observation that the
mere fact that the elder brother of the applicant
was engaged in agricultural work and was also
doing the work of a casual painter, would not be
construed as gainful employment. This finding in
Govind Prakash Verma [(2005) 10 SCC 289] is
purely on the facts of that case and cannot be
construed to be of any relevance to the present
case.
9. The High Court has observed that the
State should consider cases for appointment on
compassionate basis by dealing with the
applications submitted by sons, or as the case may
be, daughters of deceased government employees,
even though, one member of the family is engaged
in the service of the government or an autonomous
board or corporation. This direction of the
judgment of the High Court virtually amounts to a
mandamus to the State Government to disregard
the terms which have been stipulated in paragraph
5(c) of its Policy dated 18-1-1990. The policy
contains a limited exception which is available
only to a widow of a deceased employee who seeks
compassionate appointment even though one of the
children of the deceased employee is gainfully
employed with the State. The basis for this
exception is to deal with cases where the widow is
not being supported financially by her children.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
10. In the exercise of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution, it was not open to
the High Court to re-write the terms of the policy. It
is well-settled that compassionate appointment is
not a matter of right, but must be governed by the
terms on which the State lays down the policy of
offering employment assistance to a member of the
family of a deceased government employee.
[Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994)
4 SCC 138], SBI v. Kunti Tiwary [(2004) 7 SCC
271, Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar
Teneja [(2004) 7 SCC 265], SBI v. Somvir Singh
[(2007) 4 SCC 778, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State
of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384], Union of
India v. Shashank Goswami [(2012) 11 SCC 307,
SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi [(2014) 15 SCC 739
and Canara Bank v. M.Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7
SCC 412].
11. For the above reasons, we are of the view
that the judgment of the High Court is
unsustainable. The High Court has virtually
rewritten the terms of the Policy and has issued a
direction to the State to consider applications
which do not fulfill the terms of the policy. This is
impermissible.”
Furthermore, G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department,
dated 23.01.2020, has clearly prescribed comprehensive guidelines for
compassionate ground appointment, in supersession of all the earlier orders
issued.
11. In the case on hand, the petitioner's family was able to survive for
about 29 years after the death of the deceased/employee and the claim of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
petitioner for employment after 29 years of death of his father was not to
mitigate the indigent circumstance and the very purpose of the act would be
defeated if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the aforesaid facts and
settled legal position, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained and it
deserves to be rejected. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the
impugned order passed by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also reported no instructions and therefore, this Court based on
the affidavit, materials on record and settled legal position has arrived at the
aforesaid conclusion.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
06.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
Jvm
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
1.The District Collector,
The Office of the District Collector,
Vellore District.
2.The Sub-Collector,
The Office of the District Collector,
Ranipet, Vellore District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Arakonam, Vellore District.
W.P.No.35072 of 2013
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
