Madras High Court
V.Esakimuthu vs The Chairman/Managing Director on 7 February, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
V.Esakimuthu ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Chairman/Managing Director
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., No.800, Annasalai,
Chennai-2.
2.The Chief Engineer Personnel,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., No.800, Annasalai,
Chennai-2.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Thuthukudi Electricity Distribution Circle,
Thuthukudi. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
of the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 10.05.2018
bearing Letter No.Ka.No.08536/72/Nep2/ENe.U/Co.Veali/18 and quash
the same and direct the respondents to provide suitable employment to
the petitioner on compassionate grounds based on his qualification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan
ORDER
The order impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
2. The father of the writ petitioner, who was working as Wiremen,
died on 14.05.2003 while he was in service. The mother of the writ
petitioner submitted an application on 28.01.2004 and in response to the
said application, the Assistant Executive Engineer Distribution,
Srivaikundam had sent a letter on 21.09.2006 asking the mother of the
writ petitioner to produce the certificates. It was found that the
petitioner's mother was not qualified and the petitioner was a minor
during the relevant point of time. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible
during the relevant point of time when the application was made,
thereafter, on attaining the age of majority in the year 2017, the petitioner
submitted the representation to the authorities on 17.03.2018 for
providing appointment on compassionate ground. The said
representation was rejected on 10.05.2018. Thus, the petitioner is
constrain to move the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
3. The reasons stated in the order impugned is that the petitioner
has not submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment
within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased
employee and therefore, he is not eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground.
4. 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 equal opportunity to participate in the process of
selection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
5. 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 also restricted
the compassionate appointment and it is to be extended only to the
deserving family and more so, not 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 also issued revised instructions for providing
compassionate appointment in G.O.Ms.18, Labour and Employment,
dated 23.01.2020.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
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
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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
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 in such posts has a
rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
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 Verma
[Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC
289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
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.”
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner
has not established any acceptable grounds for the purpose of
considering the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition and
hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No 07.02.2022
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
am
W.P.(MD) No.4570 of 2019
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
