Madras High Court

Kanmani vs The Chief Engineer on 17 August, 2022

                                                                                            WP No.33997 of 2015

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 17-08-2022

                                                              CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                         WP No.33997 of 2015



                     Kanmani                        ..                         Petitioner

                                                                 vs.

                     1.The Chief Engineer,
                       Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                       No.144, Anna Salai,
                       Chennai – 600 002.

                     2.The Superintending Engineer,
                       Perambalur Electricity Distribution Circle,
                       Perambalur.            ..                               Respondents

                                  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
                     records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in
                     Ka.No.125517/Ni.P.1/U4/Ko.VaVe/2015 dated 04.08.2015 and quash the
                     same and consequently direct the respondents to provide job by appointing
                     the petitioner on compassionate grounds.



                     1/14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       WP No.33997 of 2015

                                  For Petitioner                 : Ms.A.Chitra for
                                                                    Mr.P.Suresh

                                  For Respondents                : Mr.P.Subramanian,
                                                                    Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO.

                                                           ORDER

The rejection order of the second respondent in proceedings

dated 04.08.2015, rejecting the application submitted by the writ petitioner

seeking compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the present writ

petition.

2. The father of the writ petitioner late Mr.Santhiran worked as

an Assessor Grade-II and died on 26.02.2011, while he was in service. The

petitioner was a minor at the time of death of her father and was studying

VIII Standard. Thus, she was not eligible for appointment on compassionate

ground.

3. The mother of the writ petitioner has not submitted any

application seeking appointment during the relevant point of time. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

petitioner submitted an application on 22.06.2015, which was rejected

through the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 on the ground that it was not

submitted within a period of three years from the date of death of the

deceased employee.

4. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the

respondent-TANGEDCO, made a submission that even on the date of

submission of the application, on 22.06.2015, the writ petitioner was a minor

and not attained the age of majority. The writ petitioner attained the age of

majority only on 29.06.2015 as her date of birth is 30.06.1997.

5. In view of the fact that the application itself was submitted

beyond the period of three years, the petitioner is not eligible to avail the

benefit of seeking appointment on compassionate ground as per the terms and

conditions stipulated.

6. The Scheme of Compassionate Appointment was introduced

to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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 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.

7. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no

selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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 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.

8. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.33997 of 2015

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. This Court is of the considered opinion that the terms and

conditions of the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment is to be followed

scrupulously by the Authorities Competent. Any violation would result in

infringement of the Fundamental Right of all other eligible candidates, who all

are aspiring to secure public employment through Open Competitive System.

Thus, the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment is to be restricted only for

the purpose of providing employment to the genuine families, who all are in

indigent circumstances. Even the indigent circumstances of the deceased

employees are to be verified by conducting filed enquiry and by verifying the

source of income of the family of the deceased employees. Thus the vital

factors are to be assessed before providing public employment as lakh and

lakh of youth of our Great Nation, are longing to secure public employments