Madras High Court
R.Prabakaran vs The Chief Engineer (Employment) on 27 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019 and
W.M.P.(MD) No.8119 of 2019
R.Prabakaran ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Chief Engineer (Employment),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),
N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai 8th Street,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle,
Metro, Trichy - 20.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Office & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Manapparai Division, Trichy District. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in
pursuant of impugned order in Letter No.
38476/0691-2/ep/gp/1/,/epc/nfh/th/nt/2018 dated 29.09.2018 issued by the
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate
grounds within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathavaselvam
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan, Standing Counsel
ORDER
The order impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner states that his father, Late Ramasamy served as
Wireman in TANGEDCO and died on 04.04.2015 while he was in service.
The petitioner himself has stated that his mother was working as a part time
Noon Meal Organiser in Anganwadi Centre. Under those circumstances,
the petitioner states that the family was in indigent circumstances and he
submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
The 2nd respondent rejected the application on the ground that the wife of
the deceased employee was already employed in Anganwadi Centre as part
time Noon Meal Organiser and if any legal heir of the deceased employee is
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
working in any of the Government department or in private sector, then the
legal heirs are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the scheme of
compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as an
absolute right. Scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, the same must be implemented strictly in accordance
with the terms and conditions. Once any of the legal heir of the deceased
employee is working in Government sector or in private sector, then the
members of the family are not entitled to secure employment on
compassionate grounds. This being the scope of the scheme, there is no
infirmity in respect of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The principles
regarding compassionate appointment are ruled as follows by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata, reported
in (2022) 1 SCC 30:-
“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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
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 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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all
aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the 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:
“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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
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 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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
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 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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
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 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.”
4. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
dismissed.
27.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
abr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
To
1. The Chief Engineer (Employment),
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO),
N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai 8th Street,
800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle,
Metro, Trichy - 20.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Office & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Manapparai Division, Trichy District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) No.10592 of 2019
27.04.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
