Madras High Court
R.Muniasamy vs The Commissioner on 1 March, 2022
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.4878 of 2021
R.Muniasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation
S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in
Na.Ka.No.H1/767/2020 dated 24.12.2020 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondent to give appointment to the
petitioner under the compassionate ground.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Munnamalai
For Respondent : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
compassionate appointment in proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.H1/767/2020
dated 24.12.2020 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The father of the writ petitioner Mr.Raj was working as Sanitary
Worker in the respondent Corporation and he died on 15.05.2013, while
he was in service. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment
on 02.02.2016 within a period of three years. However, the said
application was rejected by the respondent Corporation on the ground
that the mother of the writ petitioner is also working as an employee in
the very same Corporation and further, the mother of the petitioner is
receiving family pension, due to the death of the writ petitioner. When
the wife of the deceased employee is also working in the respondent
Corporation and apart from the salary, receiving the family pension of the
deceased employee. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for
appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme of
compassionate appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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 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 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 has also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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 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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
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.”
6.This being the factum, there is no infirmity as such in respect of
the order of rejection passed by the respondent. Hence this Writ Petition
is dismissed. No costs.
01.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
To
The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation
S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.4878 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Ns
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD)No.4878 of 2021
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
