Madras High Court
A.Elangovan vs The District Collector on 25 February, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.800 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.800 of 2021
A.Elangovan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent ie., the
District Collector, Tiruchirappalli to appoint the petitioner on compassionate
grounds according to the petitioner's educational qualifications within a
specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh,
Government Advocate.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the first
respondent / District Collector to appoint the petitioner on compassionate
grounds, according to his educational qualifications.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a
submission that the father of the writ petitioner Late.M.Ammasi was employed
as Village Assistant and died in harness on 25.07.2001. The petitioner has
submitted an application, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on
19.09.2001 and the said application has not been considered till today. The
employment of the brother of the writ petitioner cannot be a bar for
consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
made a submission that the brother of the writ petitioner is already working as
Secondary Grade Teacher and therefore, the family is not entitled for the
benefit of compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
4.This Court is of the considered opinion that the scheme of
compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the circumstances,
arising on account of sudden demise of the Government Employee. Thus, the
efflux of time would draw factual inference that the penurious circumstances
arouse on account of the sudden death of employee became vanished. Even
such indigent circumstances continues after several years. Such indigence
cannot be considered for the purpose of compassionate appointment. In the
present case, though the father of the writ petitioner died on 25.07.2001 and
the application was submitted on 19.09.2001, the petitioner has not pursued
the matter for about 20 years. The Writ Petition itself was filed on
08.01.2021, after a lapse of about 20 years from the date of death of the
deceased employee.
5.This being the factum, the compassionate appointment cannot be
extended after a lapse of 20 years from the date of death of deceased employee
and in the event of considering such case after several years, the very purpose
and object of the scheme will be defeated. More so, the scheme of
compassionate appointment cannot be extended by the Courts for the purpose
of providing one appointment to the legal heir of the deceased employee. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
facts and circumstances prevailing in the family and indigent circumstances
are also to be considered for the purpose of providing public appointment, as
the compassionate appointment is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
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.800 of 2021
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
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.”
7.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the
writ petitioner. 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.800 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Myr
W.P.(MD)No.800 of 2021
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
