Madras High Court
R.Ramadevi vs The Principal Secretary on 25 February, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
R.Ramadevi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Highways Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General,
Integrated Chief Engineer's Office,
HRS Campus, 76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance,
Tirunelveli.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
4.Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance,
Virudhunagar.
5.Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance,
Srivilliputhur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
connected with the impugned order passed by the second respondent in
proceedings No.5344/Nir 1 (2)/2016 dated 12.10.2020 and quash the same
and consequently, direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner on
compassionate grounds in the Highways Department in a suitable post.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rengaramanujam
For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian,
Government Advocate.
ORDER
The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
compassionate appointment in the proceedings dated 12.10.2020, is under
challenge in the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
2.The father of the writ petitioner, namely, K.Rajaguru was
employed as Road Inspector and died in harness on 23.12.2006.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a
submission that the brother of the writ petitioner initially submitted an
application, seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 05.05.2007 and
the said application was processed and the brother of the petitioner has also
submitted his original certificates. When the application was in progress, the
appointment order was not issued. However, the brother of the petitioner
wanted to pursues his education and accordingly, not insisted for appointment
on time.
4.With reference to the above submission, the learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents, relying the order impugned has stated
that no doubt, the brother of the writ petitioner has submitted an application
on 05.05.2007. However, he has given a letter on 15.09.2010 for withdrawal
of the application and for return of all the original certificates and all those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
original certificates were returned on condition that he will not seek any
appointment on compassionate ground. However, the writ petitioner /
daughter of the deceased employee has submitted an application on
27.07.2012, which was rejected on the ground that three years period expired
from the date of death of the deceased employee.
5.This Court is of the considered opinion that the brother, who
submitted the application, was not interested in pursuing the employment.
Contrarily, he has submitted a letter, stating that he will not submit any
application for compassionate appointment in future and get back his original
certificates handed over to the department. Under those circumstances, the
other legal heirs are not eligible for appointment.
6.The contention of the petitioner that earlier application submitted
by the brother of the petitioner is to be considered as a continuous cause,
cannot be accepted, as the scheme of compassionate appointment is an
exception and concession, not a right. Therefore, once the legal heir
submitted application and that application is not pursued and withdrawn, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
next legal heir cannot submit application for employment. It is not as if one
appointment is provided to the family of the deceased.
7.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
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, 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-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
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 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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
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.”
8.This being the scope of the scheme, this Court do not find any
infirmity or perversity in respect of the order of the second respondent.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
25.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Myr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Highways Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General,
Integrated Chief Engineer's Office,
HRS Campus, 76, Sardar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 025.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance,
Tirunelveli.
4.Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance,
Virudhunagar.
5.Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance,
Srivilliputhur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Myr
W.P.(MD)No.765 of 2021
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
