Madras High Court
R.Padma Kumar vs The District Collector on 20 January, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Writ Petition (MD)No.19549 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.15838 and 15839 of 2017
R.Padma Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
O/o. The District Collectorate Office,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,
Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
O/o. The Tahsildar Office,
Vembakkottai,
Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to
the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in
Ni.Mu.A6/31995/2013, dated 07.08.2017 and quash the same as illegal and
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/13
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
consequently to direct the first respondent to provide employment to the
petitioner on compassionate ground taking into account the recommendation
made by the Special Deputy Collector cum Assistant Collector, Sivakasi by his
proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/6517/2013 dated 26.06.2015 within the period that
may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Nawaz Khan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed
by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ni.Mu.A6/31995/2013, dated
07.08.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the first
respondent to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground,
taking into account the recommendation made by the Special Deputy Collector
cum Assistant Collector, Sivakasi, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/6517/2013,
dated 26.06.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as Village
Administrative Officer at A.lakshmipuram, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar
District and he died in harness on 16.12.1997, leaving behind the petitioner,
mother, elder sister and his younger brother as legal heirs. Hence, the mother of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment to her on
29.06.1998. Thereafter, she made another application to the first respondent on
03.07.2000, for compassionate appointment to any one of the legal heirs, after
attaining majority. The petitioner's sister made an application for compassionate
appointment on 07.06.2004 and subsequently, the petitioner has also submitted
his application on 06.11.2006 to the first respondent. However, no action has
been taken. Therefore, the petitioner's mother once again gave a representation
to the first respondent on 17.07.2013, requesting him to provide employment to
the petitioner. The said representation was forwarded to the second respondent
on 19.03.2014 and the third respondent, by his proceedings dated 03.07.2014,
called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 15.07.2014 along with
necessary documents. In compliance of the same, the petitioner appeared before
the third respondent and produced the entire documents. In the mean while, the
first respondent directed the Deputy Collector, Sivakasi to conduct enquiry and
submit a report by his proceedings dated 29.09.2014 and 30.10.2014. Based on
the instruction given by the first respondent, the Deputy Collector, Sivakasi by
his proceedings dated 26.06.2015, sent a recommendation to the first
respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate
ground. After receipt of the said recommendation, the first respondent, by his
proceedings dated 13.10.2015, sought for certain clarification and to rectify the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
discrepancies and the same was forwarded by the Assistant Collector to the
third respondent on 20.05.2015. After rectifying the same, the proposal was
forwarded to the first respondent and thereafter, the first respondent, by his
proceedings dated 02.02.2016, forwarded the petitioner's original SSLC
certificate to the Controller of Examination for verification. While so, the first
respondent by his proceedings dated 19.09.2016, requesting the second
respondent to submit the family financial status. Thereafter, the third
respondent by his proceedings dated 15.10.2016, submitted the financial status
report to the second respondent stating that the family is still under indigent
circumstances. However, the first respondent, by his proceedings dated
07.08.2017, rejected the petitioner's application, on the ground that the
appointment cannot be sought for other legal heirs belatedly. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
admittedly, the petitioner's mother made an application for compassionate
appointment well within the time. However, in continuation of the earlier
application, the petitioner and his sister repeatedly made applications for
compassionate appointment. In fact, the Deputy Collector, Sivakasi has also
sent a recommendation to the first respondent on 26.06.2015, to appoint the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate ground. However,
without considering the recommendation submitted by the Deputy Collector,
mechanically the first respondent has rejected the application, which is
unsustainable one and there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. Hence, he
prays for allowing this writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the petitioner's mother made an application to
the first respondent on 03.07.2000, seeking employment to any one of the legal
heirs, after they attaining majority and that application itself shows that at the
relevant point of time, though the eligible members are available in the family,
she made application only to the legal heirs, which cannot be considered and
the Scheme provides only to tide over the financial crisis faced by the deceased
family. In the present case, the indigent circumstances of the family was not
established before the authority and hence, he prays for dismissal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
6. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's father
passed away in the year 1997 and the petitioner's mother made an application
on 29.06.1998 for compassionate appointment to her and subsequently, she
made another application on 03.07.2000 and admittedly, these two
representations are made well within the time. However, in the said application
dated 03.07.2000, the petitioner's mother seeking employment to any one of the
legal heirs, after they attaining majority. Thereafter, the petitioner's sister made
an application in the year 2004 and the petitioner made an application for
compassionate appointment in the year 2006, which have been rejected. It is
evident that the petitioner and his sister had applied beyond the prescribed
period of three years.
7. Further, 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.
8. 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 09.12.2020,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
considering the decision of the 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 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
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 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
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 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.”
9. 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
providing compassionate appointment. Holistically considering, the period of
three years for moving an application for compassionate appointment is
provided, which 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 the 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 be out of context to state that the longer the period, the sustenance of the
members of the family would by itself be an attributing factor to deny
compassionate appointment.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the order passed by the first respondent 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, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
akv
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The District Collector,
O/o. The District Collectorate Office,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,
Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
O/o. The Tahsildar Office,
Vembakkottai,
Virudhunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.19549 of 2017
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
akv
Writ Petition (MD)No.19549 of 2017
20.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
