Madras High Court

A.Dinesh Kumar vs The Managing Director on 17 August, 2022

                                                                                        WP No.30629 of 2015

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 17-08-2022

                                                                CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                      WP No.30629 of 2015



                     A.Dinesh Kumar                        ..                       Petitioner

                                                                 vs.


                     1.The Managing Director,
                       Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                       Mettupalayam Road,
                       Coimbatore – 641 043.

                     2.The General Manager,
                       Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
                       Mettupalayam Road,
                       Coimbatore – 641 043.

                     3.The District Employment Officer,
                       Coimbatore District.        ..                               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 of the second respondent in No.151/E3D/PA THU1/THA AABOGA


                     1/14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        WP No.30629 of 2015

                     (KO)/2010 dated 06.03.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the
                     first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's case for
                     compassionate appointment and provide any nature of appointment in the
                     Transport Corporation according to the petitioner educational qualification.


                                  For Petitioner                 : Mr.R.Rajiv Gandhi

                                  For Respondents-1 and 2        : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan

                                  For Respondent-3               : Mr.M.Bindran,
                                                                   Additional Government Pleader.

                                                            ORDER

The application submitted by the writ petitioner, seeking

appointment on compassionate ground on 07.12.2009, was rejected through

the impugned order dated 06.03.2010 on the ground that the application was

submitted after a lapse of about 7 years from the date of death of the

deceased employee as per the terms and conditions of compassionate

appointment, the application is to be submitted within a period of three years

from the date of death of the deceased employee.

2. The petitioner states that his father late Mr.S.Anbazhagan was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

working as Conductor in the respondent-Transport Corporation and died on

08.05.2002, while he was in service. During the relevant point of time, the

petitioner was a minor and thus he was not eligible to seek appointment on

compassionate ground. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner

submitted an application on 07.12.2009 and by that time the period of three

years have elapsed and the application of the petitioner was rejected on the

said ground.

3. 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.

4. 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

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

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 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

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 favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

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.”

6. The fact remains that 20 years have elapsed from the date of

death of the deceased employee. The efflux of time is also a ground to draw

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.30629 of 2015

the factual inference that penurious circumstances on account of sudden death

of an employee became vanished. The Scheme of Compassionate

Appointment is not meant to provide job to the family of the deceased

employee. The object is to ensure mitigate circumstances arising on account

of the sudden death of the deceased employee. Thus, the Scheme of

Compassionate Appointment is to be implemented only by conducting the

field enquiry with reference to the indigent circumstances of the deceased

family and therefore, the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment, cannot be

granted beyond the period of time and such a delay is also a ground to reject