Madras High Court
B.Muthukumar vs The Chairman on 25 February, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.11866 of 2020
B.Muthukumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
VIII Floor, No.800,
K.R.R.Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personal),
TANGEDCO,
VIII Floor, No.800,
K.R.R.Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Office of the Superintending Engineer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to Na.Ka.No.007033/146/Ni.A/Ni.B.3/Ko.Va.Velai/2020, dated
08.04.2020 and quash the same as against law and thereby direct these
respondents to appoint this petitioner under the compassionate ground, as
his father Balasubramanian died in harness on 30.10.2015 while he was in
service in the TANGEDCO as Wireman with his qualifications, within a
time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan,
Standing Counsel
******
ORDER
The order of rejection dated 08.04.2020, 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 was working as Wireman under
the 3rd respondent-TANGEDCO and died in harness on 30.10.2015. During
the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, his
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
application submitted on 17.05.2018, was not considered. However, the
petitioner, on attaining the age of majority, has submitted further application
on 03.04.2020, which was beyond the period of three years. Thus, the 3rd
respondent has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that no
application is to be entertained after a lapse of three years from the date of
death of the employee.
3.This Court is of the considered opinion that the terms and
conditions of compassionate appointment are to be followed scrupulously.
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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
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.
5.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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms)
No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, 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 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;
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
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 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:
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
“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 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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
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, 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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
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 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,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
(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.”
7.As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, in view of the
fact that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite conditions
contemplated under the scheme of compassionate appointment, the benefit
cannot be extended and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed
and accordingly, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.02.2022
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
abr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
To
1.The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
VIII Floor, No.800,
K.R.R.Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Personal),
TANGEDCO,
VIII Floor, No.800,
K.R.R.Maligai, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
Office of the Superintending Engineer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) No.14211 of 2020
25.02.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
