Madras High Court

R.Umamaheswari vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 25 February, 2022

                                                                          W.P.(MD)No.690 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.690 of 2021

                 R.Umamaheswari                                       ... Petitioner
                                                      -Vs-
                 1.The Principal Secretary to the Government,
                    Home Department, Secretariat,
                    Fort St.George, Chennai.


                 2.The Director General of Police,
                    No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
                    Mylapore, Chennai-4.


                 3.The Superintendent of Police,
                    Dindigul, Dindigul District.                      ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                 for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                 relating to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.A9/240-CA/2014 dated
                 31.08.2020 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and

                 1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

                 consequently, direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner in any
                 suitable post based upon the petitioner's qualification and other eligibilities on
                 compassionate ground.


                                    For Petitioner     : Mr.A.Rajaram
                                    For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
                                                         Special Government Pleader.


                                                            ORDER

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for

compassionate appointment on the ground that the second daughter of the

deceased employee, namely, R.Vijayakumari is working as Grade II Police

Constable in the Police Department, is under challenge in the present Writ

Petition.

2.The petitioner states that her father, namely, K.Ramalingam was

employed as Special Sub-Inspector of Police in Social Welfare and Human

Rights Wing, Dindigul and died on 07.04.2014, while he was in service. The

petitioner has submitted an application, seeking appointment on

compassionate ground within the time limit. However, the case of the writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

petitioner was rejected on the ground that her younger sister is employed as

Grade II Police Constable in the Police Department.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a

submission that the younger sister is working as Police Constable from the

year 2011 itself and therefore, her appointment cannot be a bar for providing

compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner. In other words, it is

contended that the younger sister of the petitioner secured the employment

even before the death of her father and therefore, the scheme of compassionate

appointment is to be extended in favour of the writ petitioner.

4.This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not as if one

appointment is to be provided to the family of the deceased employee.

Contrarily, if any one of the family member is already in Government service /

public service, then the family is not entitled to avail the benefit of

compassionate appointment. The Government has also revised the scheme of

compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms)No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1)

Department, dated 23.01.2020. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

“(V) The compassionate ground appointment will not be considered:-

(a) In case any person of the deceased Government Servant's family is in regular employment in Government / Private Enterprises.

(b) The wife of the deceased Government Servant who applied for appointment for herself is remarried.”

5.When the Government policy contemplates certain restrictions for

providing compassionate appointment, the Court cannot wide the scope, as the

scheme of compassionate appointment is only a concession and not a right.

Thus, the scheme is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms

and conditions stipulated.

6.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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

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.

7.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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

8.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 the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

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.690 of 2021

“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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

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- 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

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) 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.690 of 2021

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.”

9.In the present case, the deceased father was a Special Sub

Inspector of Police. Even before his death, the younger sister of the petitioner

was working as Grade II Police Constable in the Police Department. When

one of the legal heir of the deceased employee is serving in the Government

Department, the other legal heir is not entitled for appointment on

compassionate ground and the Government Order includes private

employment also.

10.For all these reasons, 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.690 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.