Madras High Court
M.Jeeva Ananth vs The Commissioner Of Police on 4 February, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:04.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)No.15267 of 2016
M.Jeeva Ananth ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Madurai City Police,
Madurai,
Madurai District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A4/40042/2016 dated
27.09.2016 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal
and consequently, to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground within the time stipulated by this
Court.
1/14
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathiroy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Karthick
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A4/40042/2016, dated
27.09.2016, on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal
and consequently, direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father was
working as a Grade-I Police Constable (PC 3045) in the police
Department and his father passed away on 22.12.1998, while he was in
service, leaving behind the petitioner and his mother as his legal heirs
and later the petitioner's mother has remarried and she left the petitioner
under the control of his grandmother. At the time of death of the
petitioner's father, he was four years old and after attaining majority, the
petitioner has made a representation on 20.04.2015 to the respondent,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Pursuant to which, the
respondent has rejected the petitioner's representation on 27.09.2016 on
the ground that he was a minor at the time of death of his father.
Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at
the time of death of the petitioner's father, he was a minor and hence, he
was not able to get appointment and after attaining majority, the
petitioner has made an application for compassionate appointment and
the same has to be considered in a proper manner, but the respondent has
rejected the petitioner's application. Further submitted that the
respondent has not considered the indigent circumstances faced by the
petitioner's family and rejected his application on the ground that the
petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. Further, before
the death of the petitioner's father, he was deserted by his mother and he
is the only legal heir. Hence, he prays the aforesaid relief in the writ
petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
4.Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent submitted that though the petitioner's father died while in
service on 22.12.1998, at which time the petitioner was a minor, aged
about 4 years. The petitioner, after completion of his education and
attaining majority, has submitted his application, which is beyond the
period of three years mandated under G.O. Ms. No.18, which
Government Order was issued in consonance with the decisions of this
Court, as could be seen from the Government Orders. Further, it is
submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the Full Bench of
this Court in W.P. (MD) Nos.7016 of 2011, etc. Batch, vide order dated
11.3.2020, has held that the outer limit for consideration of a candidature
for compassionate appointment is only three years and that too subject to
the scheme that is in existence. The petitioner having given his
application beyond the period of three years and hence, the
representation was rejected, which requires no interference.
5. This Court, while dealing with a similar case in M.Vigneswaran
– Vs – Govt. of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No.25231 of 2014), vide order dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
09.12.2020, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench on the
issue of compassionate appointment, held as under :-
“13. ....... In W.P. (MD) Nos.7016 of 2011, etc. Batch,
vide order dated 11.3.2020, on a reference made by the
learned single Judge of this Court relating to conflicting
views in relation to compassionate appointment, the matter
was placed before the Full Bench. The reference made to
the Full Bench is as under :-
"Whether the view taken in A.Kamatchi's case
holding that an application for compassionate
appointment made even beyond three years of the
death of the deceased needs consideration, is the
correct law or the judgment of the Division Bench in
N.Renugadevi's case, where a contradictory view has
been taken, is the correct law?"
Tracing the lineage on the advent of compassionate
appointment and the factors that are to be had in mind,
while considering a case of compassionate
appointment, the Full Bench sculpted the factors that
needs to be taken into consideration while looking at a
case relating to grant of compassionate appointment
and for better understanding the same is extracted
hereunder :-
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in
the absence of rules or regulations issued by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
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) An application for compassionate employment
must be preferred without undue delay and has to be
considered within a reasonable period of time.
(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.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only
to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated
employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not
to all relatives, and such appointments should be only
to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.
(Refer Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana
(1994) 4 SCC 138).
15. From the above, it is unambiguously clear that
application for compassionate appointment should be
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
made without undue delay and it should be considered
strictly in accordance with the governing scheme and
no discretion is vested with the authority and that the
concept of compassionate appointment is only to meet
the sudden crisis that has befallen the family on the
death of the breadwinner.
16. From the above the main ingredient for
considering a case for compassionate appointment is
that it is only for the purpose of meeting the sudden
crisis that has occurred due to the untimely death of
the breadwinner. It is not that in all cases where the
breadwinner breathes his last in harness,
compassionate appointment, at any point of time, ought
to be given as a matter of right.
17. The Full Bench, in the above said decision, after
discussing the various Government Orders and also the
laws propounded on the subject by the High Court as
well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court, answered the
reference in the following terms :-
“In view of the above, the reference is answered as
under:-
a) Appointment on compassionate basis has to be
strictly followed in accordance with the relevant G.O.'s
or the scheme that has been framed by the employer.
Any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.
b) In view of the above the judgment of the Division
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
Bench in E.Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board and the Secretary to Government Vs.
Renugadevi, lays down the correct law and the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.08.2013 in
A.Kamatchi Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, which is contrary to the scheme framed by the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board does not lay down the
correct proposition. Reference is answered
accordingly.”
6. From the conceptual proposition of law laid down by the Full
Bench, it is implicitly clear that the appointment on compassionate basis
should be strictly be in accordance with the Government Orders/the
Scheme framed for the said purpose by the employer.
7. On the above proposition of law, it is evident that the very
concept of giving a compassionate appointment is for the bereaved
family to tide over the financial difficulties faced by it due to the
untimely death of the breadwinner.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
8. It should not be lost sight of that appointments to public offices
have to comply with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Compassionate appointment is in the nature of an
exception to the ordinary norm of allowing equality of opportunity to
other eligible persons to compete for public employment.
9. A person in penury or distress will not take long to survive the
vagaries of penury for seeking information of such benefits. If a
dependent, who sleeps over and does not make any effort by the reason
of his own incapacity, which also includes the dependent-claimant not
having attained the age of majority, such lapse of time on the part of the
claimant will definitely lead to dilute the immediacy of the requirement.
The time spent to attain majority cannot be a ground for claiming
compassionate appointment. Indigency is the need that needs to be
established, even within the threshold limit of three years, as is also
evident from G.O. Ms. No.18 to decide on providing compassionate
appointment. Holistically considering, the period of three years for
moving an application for compassionate appointment is provided, which
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
means that if the dependent is only about 15 years of age, he/she can
apply immediately after attaining the age of majority. However, the
lower age of the dependent would not be an attributing factor to extend
the period, as such elasticity would have no ends to meet. Further, it
should also not be out of context to state that the longer period, the
sustenance of the members of the family would by itself be an attributing
factor to deny compassionate appointment.
10. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that on the date of death
of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was aged about 4 years and on
acquiring the requisite educational qualifications and also on attaining
the age of majority, viz., 18 years, the petitioner submitted an application
for compassionate appointment, which has been rejected. It is evident
that the petitioner had applied beyond the prescribed period of three
years. The ground on which the petitioner claims an appointment on
compassionate grounds is that his father died in harness and, therefore, as
his surviving legal heir, he is entitled to compassionate appointment.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
11. As pointed out above, the intent and purpose for which the
benevolent act is intended is to alleviate the poverty of the distressed
family at the crucial hour and to provide it with financial stability. In the
case on hand, the father of the petitioner died, while the petitioner was
aged about 4 years of age. Even in the calamitous situation, the
petitioner has been brought up and has completed his education upto
graduation, which clearly shows that the family definitely had means to
sustain itself even during the distressed situation. Therefore, the plea of
the petitioner to direct the respondents to provide the relief of
compassionate appointment to the petitioner by issuing appropriate
directions would be an exercise, beyond the scope and ambit of
compassionate appointment and issuing such a direction would defeat the
very purpose for which the said benevolence has been granted to
deserving individuals.
12. Further, it is to be pointed out that G.O. Ms. No.18, dt.
23.01.2020 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled for compassionate
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
appointment, does not deserve acceptance for the simple reason that such
a clause is not found in the said Government Order. Further, the
Government Order itself stipulates framing of scheme for providing
compassionate appointment and in the absence of any scheme being
pointed out by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner that he is eligible
to be considered on the basis of the above Government Order does not
merit acceptance.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the order passed by the respondents as no case has been made out by
the petitioner to substantiate his grievance. Accordingly, this writ
petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
04.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
To
The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Madurai City Police,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Ns
W.P.(MD)No.21351 of 2016
04.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
