Madras High Court
A.Justin Felix vs The Chairman on 23 February, 2022
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
A.Justin Felix ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800 Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
TANGEDCO,
8th Floor, Eastern Wing,
NPKRR Maaligai,
144, Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Distribution Division,
Trichy Corporation,
Trichy. ... Respondents
_________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the impugned order in letter No.467/Ni.Pi.
1/E.Ni.Oo/Go/Va.Ve/2020 dated 25.06.2020 issued by the third respondent
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide an
employment on compassionate basis on the petitioner based on petitioner
representation dated 21.06.2019 and on his educational qualification.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jeyasankar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan
ORDER
The order impugned dated 25.06.2020 reveals that the
TANGEDCO employee namely Anthonisamy was working as Masthoor and
died in harness on 11.10.2009, while he was in service. Though the mother
of the writ petitioner submitted an application within a period of three years
on 14.03.2012 to provide employment to her. The Board found that the
mother of the writ petitioner was not eligible for appointment as per the
Board Service Regulations. Further, the petitioner was a minor during
relevant point of time and therefore, he became ineligible to submit
application. When the petitioner attained the age of majority, the three years
period expired, therefore, the authorities Competent rejected the application
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
in the year 2020. Admittedly, the deceased employee died on 11.10.2009
and the wife of the deceased employee filed an application and the
Authorities found that she was not eligible for appointment. Now after a
lapse of about 13 years, the scope of the scheme of compassionate
appointment cannot be expanded by the Court for the purpose of providing
one employment to the family of the deceased employee which is not
otherwise contemplated under the scheme.
2. 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
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
appointments are to be made in accordance with the rules and by providing
equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.
3. 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.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
4. 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 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
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
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 purpose of appointment on
compassionate ground and considered decision of this Court in
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
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 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
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
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,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
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
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
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 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.”
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not
accepted any acceptable legal ground and the reason stated in the impugned
order is in consonance with the scheme.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, thee
shall be no order as to costs.
23.02.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
vji
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800 Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel),
TANGEDCO,
8th Floor, Eastern Wing, NPKRR Maaligai,
144, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Distribution Division,
Trichy Corporation, Trichy.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
vji
W.P. (MD) No. 12842 of 2020
23.02.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
