Madras High Court
M. Ramadoss vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 August, 2022
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
M. Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to the Government,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur,
3.Tasildhar,
Tasildar Office, Mannargudi,
Thiruvarur Distirct. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent 20.05.2015 in his
Ni.Mu.15995/2012/A3 and quash the same and to direct the respondents
to provide any suitable job on the compassionate ground in the third
respondent office.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
ORDER
The order of rejection, 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 was working as Village
Assistant at Vanduvur and died on 14.08.2004, while he was in service.
On account of the sudden death of the father of the writ petitioner, the
family was in penurious circumstances and the petitioner states that an
application was made to appointment the petitioner on compassionate
grounds. The application initially made was rejected by the 2nd respondent
on 28.08.2007 and the petitioner filed W.P.No.10842 of 2008 and this
Court passed an order on 26.08.2014, directing the authorities to consider
the case of the writ petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate
grounds by considering the sufferings of the writ petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that
the family of the writ petitioner is suffering as the petitioner is living
along with his mother. It is further admitted that the brother of the writ
petitioner is working in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and he has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
given an affidavit that he is living separately. As per the terms and
conditions of the scheme of compassionate, if any one of the legal heir of
the deceased employee working in a Government Department or in a
private sector, then the family is not eligible for compassionate
appointment under the scheme. In the present case, admittedly the writ
petitioner's brother is working in CRPF and therefore, the family of the
deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment in view
of the terms and conditions.
4. The fact remains that the father of the writ petitioner died on
14.08.2004 and the application submitted by the writ petitioner was
rejected in the year 2007. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court,
the application of the writ petitioner was reconsidered and again it was
rejected on the ground that there is no provision to consider the case of the
writ petitioner, merely on the ground of disability. Beyond the disability,
the case of the writ petitioner was originally not considered on the ground
that his brother was employed in CRPF. In view of the fact that the one of
the legal heir of the deceased employee is working in CRPF, the family is
not entitled for compassionate appointment under the scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
5. Compassionate appointments can never be claimed as an
absolute right. Compassionate appointment is a concession and the
scheme formulated to mitigate the circumstances arises on account of the
sudden death of an employee. Scheme of compassionate appointment is
violative under the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since
there is no equal opportunity under the scheme, no selection process is
conducted, merit assessment is not made and even the rules of reservations
are not followed. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment is a
special scheme, which is otherwise not in accordance with the
Constitutional scheme of appointments.
6. All appointments should be made in accordance with the
Recruitment Rules in force. Equal opportunity in a public employment is a
Constitutional mandate. The appointments are to be made through open
competitive process by providing an opportunity to all the eligible
candidates, who all are aspiring to secure public employment in the
manner contemplated under the Service Rules. Thus, the scheme of
compassionate appointment is to be restricted and must be provided only
in deserving cases and strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions
stipulated under the scheme. Any deviation or violation would result in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
unconstitutionality, as the Equality Clause enunciated is a Fundamental
Right ensured to all citizens. More numbers of compassionate
appointments would infringe the rights of the meritorious candidates, who
all are longing to secure public employments. Thus, the Courts have
insisted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to be restricted
with reference to the terms and conditions and the genuinity of the
indigent circumstances are to be ascertained by conducting filed
inspection. The pension benefits and the sources of income and the
condition of the family are to be verified through field inspections before
providing an opportunity on compassionate ground. It is not as if that one
employment is to be provided to the family of the deceased employee. It is
the penurious circumstances, which play a pivotal role in considering the
cases for compassionate appointment.
7. Long delay is also a ground to reject the case for
compassionate appointment as efflux of time is also a ground to draw a
factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of
the sudden death of an employee became vanished. Thus, long delay is
also to be considered as a ground for rejection of appointments on
compassionate grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
8. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court of India 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
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 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 vs. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
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 vs. 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.”
9. That apart, the father of the writ petitioner died in the year
2004 and now 18 years lapsed and further, the petitioner even at the time
of the filing the writ petition was 34 years old and now he would be
around 41 years. This being the factum, the scheme of compassionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
appointment at this length of time, after the death of the deceased
employee cannot be considered.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.08.2022
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur,
3.Tasildhar,
Tasildar Office, Mannargudi,
Thiruvarur Distirct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.15450 of 2015
16.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
