Madras High Court
M.Suguna vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 4 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
M.Suguna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government/
Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,
PWD Estate,
Chepauk,
Triplicane,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant Director/
Land Survey and Records Section,
Survey Illam,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
4.The Assistant Director/
District Collector Personal Assistant,
_________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
(Land Survey Department),
Office of the District Survey Department,
Theni. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned communicated issued by the fourth
respondent vide No.Aa2/0764/2019 dated 09.02.2021 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to provide suitable appointment to
the daughter of the petitioner namely Sathya Dharani under the fourth
respondent under compassionate grounds on the basis of the application
submitted by her within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Special Government Pleader
******
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
2. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee, who was
working as Field Assistant in the fourth respondent Office. The husband of
the petitioner died on 14.10.2015. The petitioner filed an application
seeking employment to her daughter as the petitioner was not qualified for
public appointment. The daughter of the petitioner was a minor during the
relevant point of time. Therefore, the application submitted by the writ
petitioner was not considered by the Competent Authorities. On attaining
the age of majority, the daughter of the petitioner filed an application
seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 27.02.2019, after a lapse
of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Thus, the
said application was rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the
daughter of the petitioner was minor during the relevant point of time.
Therefore, she was found not qualified. However, on attaining the age of
majority, she filed an application and the said application was rejected. The
family is in indigent circumstances and therefore, the appointment is to be
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
provided.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader opposed the said
contention by stating that the eligibility of the daughter of the petitioner
arouse only after attaining the age of majority. The petitioner, who is the
wife of the deceased employee, has not made any request for providing
appointment on compassionate grounds. While so, the other legal heirs
cannot seek appointment beyond the period of three years. In the present
case, the daughter of the petitioner attained the age of majority after three
years from the date of death of the deceased employee and therefore, the
said application was not considered by the Competent Authorities, in view
of terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme of compassionate
appointment. The facts in this regard are stated in paragraph Nos.6 and 7
which reads are under:-
6. It is further submitted that, when I recevied the
application from the petitioner on 14.03.2017, her elder
daughter Sathya Dharain was only 16 years 9 months and 15
days old. As she was not eligible for the compassionate ground
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
appointment, her application has been returned based on the
above said condition (ii) supra.
7. I respectfully submit that, I received the application
from her on 27.02.2019, stating that Sathya Dharain attained 18
years old and seeking compassionate ground appointment for
her. In the said circumstance, I received the application for the
compassionate ground, submitted beyond 3 years from the date
of death of the government servants. The above said condition
(i)supra was not fulfilled at this time. Hence, I was unable to
proceed with the application seeking compassionate ground
appointment for Sathay Dharani.
5. Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and
cannot be claimed as a matter of absolute right. The scheme of
compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the circumstances
arising on account of sudden demise of the Government Employee.
Compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment, nor an
appointment under the constitutional scheme. It is a concession granted to
the Government employees on certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right and
only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions, then alone the
scheme can be extended, but not otherwise. Equal opportunity in public
employment is a constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made in
accordance with the rules and by providing equal opportunity to participate
in the process of selection.
6. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no
selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility are tested, but persons are
appointed merely based on death of an employee. Therefore, compassionate
appointment is to be restricted in the interest of the efficient public
administration. No doubt, the Government has also restricted the
compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving
family and more so, after a lapse of many years. Providing compassionate
appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose
and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on
account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the lapse of time is
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
also a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment. Number of
judgments are delivered by this Court and the Government has also issued
revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms)
No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.
7. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata, reported in (2022) 1 SCC
30, has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of
compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are
extracted hereunder:
“8. While considering the issue involved in the
present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on
compassionate ground on the death of the deceased
employee are required to be referred to and considered. In
the recent decision, this Court in State of Karnataka vs.
V.Somayashree [(2021) 12 SCC 20], had occasion to
consider the principle governing the grant of appointment
on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision
of this Court in N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka
[(2020) 7 SCC 617], this Court has summarized the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
principle governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground as under:
10.1. That the compassionate appointment is
an exception to the general rule;
10.2. That no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment;
10.3. The appointment to any public post in
the service of the State has to be made on the basis
of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India;
10.4. Appointment on compassionate ground
can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down
by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the
eligibility criteria as per the policy;
10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of the
consideration of the application should be the basis
for consideration of claim for compassionate
appointment.
9. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of
decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all
the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided
to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground
offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception
to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession
and not a right.
9.1. In the case of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC
653], this Court in paras 21 and 26 had an occasion to consider
the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate
ground and considered decision of this Court in Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC [(2005) 10 SCC 289], it is observed and
held as under:
“21. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma, has been considered subsequently in
several decisions. But, before we advert to those
decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of
compassionate appointment had been considered
by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles
which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal have been subsequently followed in a
consistent line of precedents in this Court. These
principles are encapsulated in the following
extract:
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
“2. … As a rule, appointments in the public
services should be made strictly on the basis of
open invitation of applications and merit. No other
mode of appointment nor any other consideration
is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the
public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by
the rules for the post. However, to this general rule
which is to be followed strictly in every case, there
are some exceptions carved out in the interests of
justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
such exception is in favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood. In
such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the
lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories
and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve
the family, of the financial destitution and to help it
get over the emergency. The provision of
employment in such lowest posts by making an
exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it
is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment
given to such dependant of the deceased employee
in such posts has a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved viz. relief against
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for
the purpose. It must be remembered in this
connection that as against the destitute family of
the deceased there are millions of other families
which are equally, if not more destitute. The
exception to the rule made in favour of the family
of the deceased employee is in consideration of the
services rendered by him and the legitimate
expectations, and the change in the status and
affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned.”
“26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges
in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra
[Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra,
(2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077]
has adopted the principle that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the
deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The
financial position of the family would need to be
evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained
in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10
SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly
considered, but the Court observed that it did not
appear that the earlier binding precedents of this
Court have been taken note of in that case.”
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not
established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief
as sought for in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
04.04.2022
ssb
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
To
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government/
Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,
PWD Estate,
Chepauk,
Triplicane,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Assistant Director/
Land Survey and Records Section,
Survey Illam,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Theni District,
Theni.
4.The Assistant Director/
District Collector Personal Assistant,
(Land Survey Department),
Office of the District Survey Department,
Theni.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssb
W.P.(MD) No.20110 of 2021
04.04.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
