Madras High Court

B.Ramprakash vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2022

                                                                                            WP No.23331 of 2014

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 27-06-2022

                                                              CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                         WP No.23331 of 2014



                     B.Ramprakash                   ..                         Petitioner

                                                                 vs.


                     1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Represnted by its Principal Secretary,
                       Home Department,
                       Fort St. George,
                       Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.Director General of Police,
                       Mylapore,
                       Chennai – 600 004.

                     3.Commissioner of Police,
                       Coimbatore.           ..                                Respondents

                                  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling
                     for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the order of the
                     first respondent dated 27.11.2013 bearing Letter No.23663/Pol.XV/2011-18

                     1/13


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       WP No.23331 of 2014

                     as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the
                     respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis in the suitable
                     post.


                                  For Petitioner                : Mr.Balan Haridass

                                  For Respondents               : Ms.S.Anitha,
                                                                   Special Government Pleader.

                                                           ORDER

The order of rejection dated 27.11.2013, rejecting the claim of

the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the

present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his mother Smt.B.Yasodha was

working as Junior Assistant in the office of the third respondent-

Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore and died on 14.04.1995. The father of

the writ petitioner, at the time of the death of his mother, was working as

Packer in Lakshmi Machine Works, Coimbatore. The petitioner states that

on account of the sudden death of his mother, the family of the writ

petitioner was in penurious circumstances and submitted an application

seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

rejected by the first respondent in proceedings dated 27.11.2013. The reason

for rejection of the application submitted by the writ petitioner was on the

ground that the father of the writ petitioner was employed on the date of the

death of the deceased employee i.e., the mother of the writ petitioner. Thus,

the writ petitioner's family was not in indigent circumstances and

accordingly, the application of the writ petitioner was rejected by the first

respondent.

3.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

appointments are to be made in accordance with the rules and by providing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.

4. 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

revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms)

No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.

5. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(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;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

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 WP No.23331 of 2014

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 vs. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

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 vs. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.23331 of 2014

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.”

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased

employee passed away on 14.04.1995. The petitioner submitted an

application during the year 1998 and during the relevant point of time, the

petitioner was a minor and he submitted an application on 17.03.2004

beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased

employee.

7. In view of the fact that the mother of the writ petitioner died

in the year 1995 and the petitioner submitted his application in the year

2004. Now after a lapse of about 27 years, the benefit of the Scheme of

compassionate appointment cannot be extended in favour of the writ

petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However,