Madras High Court
P.Kumaravel vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 November, 2021
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
P.Kumaravel ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By Principal Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, 68, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Thiruvarur.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Office,
Mannarkudi,
Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the second
respondents proceedings No.Moo.Mu.No.058571/J2/2013 dated 15.10.2013 to
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint
the petitioner to any eligible post on compassionate ground.
For Petitioner : M/s.T.Padmanabhan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
ORDER
The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the second respondent
dated 15.10.2013, in and by which his request for appointment on compassionate
ground came to be rejected, has filed this writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his father late V.Pichaiappan was
working as Headmaster in Mannarkudi Taluk Vettikadu Panchayat Board
Elementary School and he died while in service on 12.11.1996, leaving behind his
wife, four daughters and one son / petitioner herein. The petitioner had
submitted an application along with necessary documents/certificates to the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
respondent on 10.02.1997, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The
third respondent forwarded the petitioner's application to the second respondent
on 20.12.2000 and thereafter, there were exchange of communications from the
respondents to the petitioner asking for various particulars and the same was also
complied with and finally the second respondent, vide impugned proceedings
dated 15.10.2013 has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that after
the demise of petitioner's father and while consideration of petitioner's
application seeking compassionate ground appointment, the petitioner's family
was not in indigent circumstance since the petitioner's sister, namely P.Suganthi
was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Parthikottai Panchayat School.
Challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents
had rejected the request of the petitioner seeking compassionate ground
appointment mainly on the ground that the family of the petitioner was not in
indigent circumstance after the demise of his father since the petitioner's sister
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
was employed as Teacher in the School Education Department, but the petitioner's
sister subsequently got married and thereafter there is no support from her to the
petitioner's family and therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order
passed by the second respondent and direct the respondents to consider and
appoint the petitioner to any eligible post on compassionate ground.
4. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed
by the fourth respondent and would submit that on verification of the petitioner's
application by the third respondent, it was found that the second daughter of the
deceased viz., Mrs.P.Suganthi was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in
Panchayat Union Elementary School, Partithikodai as seen from her marriage
invitation and upon enquiry, it is made clear that the petitioner's sister was
working as Teacher before the death of the petitioner's father and she got married
only in the year 2000 and the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected by the second
respondent by the impugned order and therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The question arises for consideration is whether the family of the
petitioner was in indigent circumstance on account of the demise of petitioner's
father at the time of consideration of the application of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground ?
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father one Mr.V.Pichaiappan, who
worked as Headmaster in Mannarkudi Taluk Vettikudu Panchayat Board
Elementary School, died while in service on 12.11.1996, leaving behind the
petitioner, his mother and four sisters and the petitioner had submitted the
application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 10.02.1997 within
the mandatory period of three years. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide
impugned order on the ground that the petitioner's sister was working as
Secondary Grade Teacher before the death of the deceased and the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
consideration of petitioner's application, she is a earning member of the deceased
family.
8. It is the stand of the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that as per
G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.07.2003, if there
is already any earning member in the family of the Government Servant who died
in harness, the other dependents of the deceased Government Servant will not be
eligible for compassionate appointment.
9. At this juncture it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC
138], wherein the Honourable 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
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.”
10. 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 employee's family at the time of his
death or incapacity, as the case may be.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
11. In State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Parkash Chand
[(2019) 4 SCC 285], the Honourable 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
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.”
12. The object of giving compassionate ground appointment is to mitigate
the immediate the sudden financial crisis caused to the family of the deceased
employee. In the case on hand, the petitioner's second sister, namely
Mrs.Suganthi was working as a Teacher in the Panchayat Union Middle School as
on the date of the demise of his father and she continued living with her family
and also there is no indigent situation in the petitioner's family. Moreover, the
petitioner's family was able to survive for about 25 years and the claim of the
petitioner for employment after 25 years of death of his father was not to mitigate
the indigent circumstance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
13. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to
interfere in the impugned order passed by the second respondent. Accordingly,
this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
22.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, 68, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Thiruvarur.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Office,
Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur District.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
Jvm
W.P.No.27414 of 2014
22.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
