Madras High Court
T.Kannan vs The Director Of School Education on 6 December, 2021
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
T.Kannan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Namakkal. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order dated 06.09.2013 in reference
Na.Ka.No.2244/A1/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to appoint he petitioner in any of the
respondent's department.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.A.Mariappan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.2244/A1/2012 dated 06.09.2013, in and by which
his claim for compassionate ground appointment came to be rejected, has
filed the present writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a physically challenged person
and his father late Thangappan was working as Elementary School Teacher at
Olapalayam Panchayath School and died on 17.08.1997 while in service.
Immediately after the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's elder
brother Mr.Balachander filed an application dated 30.08.1998 seeking
appointment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, at the
time of submitting the application, since the petitioner's brother had crossed
the age of 30, the respondents, vide letter dated 05.06.2000 directed the
petitioner's brother to obtain relaxation from the Government as per Chief
Minister's Standing Order No.2 (Administrative and Reforms Department)
dated 09.01.1992.
3. It is further averred by the petitioner that since the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
brother crossed the age, in order to give way to the petitioner, who is his
younger brother and also a physically challenged person, other legal heirs
have no objection for giving appointment to the petitioner, who at that time
was within the age limit and therefore, the petitioner submitted the
application for compassionate ground appointment with relevant particulars
on 30.06.2000. The said application was rejected by the second respondent,
vide impugned order dated 06.09.2013 and challenging the same, the present
writ petition has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally
the elder son of the deceased applied for compassionate ground appointment
during 1998 and due to age bar, the petitioner applied subsequently with the
consent of other legal heirs and further, there is an inordinate delay of 12
years in rejecting the bonafide claim of the petitioner and therefore, prays for
interference.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the whole object of giving compassionate
ground employment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
sudden financial crisis and the consideration of compassionate ground
appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time and
further there is no provision for giving compassionate ground appointment to
an alternative legal heir and therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made and also perused
the materials placed before it.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner's father late Thangappan died on
17.08.1997 while in service and immediately the petitioner's elder brother
Mr.Balachander filed the application dated 30.08.1998 seeking appointment
on compassionate ground and at that time, since the petitioner's brother had
crossed the age of 30, he was directed by the respondents to obtain age
relaxation from the Government. Since the petitioner's brother crossed the
upper age limit, the petitioner submitted the application for compassionate
ground appointment with relevant particulars on 30.06.2000 and the said
application was rejected by the second respondent, vide impugned order
dated 06.09.2013, on the ground that there is no provision to give
compassionate ground appointment to an alternative legal heir.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
8. 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
which do not fulfill the terms of the policy. This is
impermissible.”
11. 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. Further, in the above said Government order, with
regard to alternative application, it has been held thus:
Alternative Application: If the applicant (legal heir of
deceased Government Servant) died after applying for
compassionate ground appointment, an alternative application
may be accepted from the another legal heir of the deceased
Government Servant, subject to conditions prescribed for
compassionate ground appointment.
12. It is also to be noted that the petitioner's family was able to survive
for about 24 years after the death of the deceased/employee and the claim of
the petitioner for employment after 24 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 respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
appointment on compassionate ground.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and the 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
second respondent.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
06.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Namakkal.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
Jvm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
W.P.No.25906 of 2014
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
