Madras High Court
Sarathkumar vs The Principal Secretary on 7 March, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
Sarathkumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Engineer-in-Chief PWD/WRD
and Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
II Floor, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Chief Engineer and Director,
Institute For Water Studies/Hydrology and Quality Control,
Water Resources Department,
Tharamani, Chennai 600 113.
4.The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization/PWD,
Quality Control Division,
North High Ground Road,
___________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
Anna Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 011,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization/PWD,
Quality Control Sub Division,
Thoothukudi. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 issued by the 1st respondent
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to give
appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds according to his
educational qualifications within a stipulated period of time as fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian,
Government Advocate
******
ORDER
The order of rejection dated 24.07.2021, rejecting the claim of the
writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the
present writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
2.The father of the writ petitioner, Late.Thiru.Senthoorpandiyan,
was working as an Office Assistant in the office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, PWD, Water Resources Organization, Special Project, Sub-
Division No.4, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District, and died on 14.06.2012
while he was in service. The petitioner and his mother submitted an
application in the year 2015 seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds. However, the said application was not considered and kept
pending for long years.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that
though the petitioner, along with his mother submitted the application, the
order impugned was passed after a lapse of six years in the year 2021.
Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents made a submission that during the relevant point of time, in the
year 2015, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, not eligible to get
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
appointment on compassionate grounds. After attaining the age of majority,
the petitioner submitted an application only on 02.12.2020, which was
beyond the period of three years from the date of death of the deceased
employee and therefore, the application was rejected.
5.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.
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.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
6.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.
7.Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata, reported in (2022) 1 SCC
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
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
principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India;
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
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:
“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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
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 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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
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
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
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
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 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.”
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
8.In the present case, the employee died in the year 2012. The
petitioner admittedly was a minor during the relevant point of time and
therefore, not eligible for appointment. The application was though rejected
in the year 2021, the application itself was submitted after attaining the age
of majority by the petitioner on 02.12.2020, as the first application of the
year 2015 cannot be considered, as the petitioner was a minor. However,
the fact remains that the petitioner on attaining the age of majority
submitted an application in the year 2020, after a lapse of about eight years
from the date of death of the deceased employee. The scheme of
compassionate appointment cannot be extended after a lapse of many years.
9.Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity as such in respect of
the order impugned and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
07.03.2022
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
abr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources Organization,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Engineer-in-Chief PWD/WRD
and Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department,
II Floor, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
W.P.(MD) No.16083 of 2021
3.The Chief Engineer and Director,
Institute For Water Studies/Hydrology and Quality Control,
Water Resources Department,
Tharamani, Chennai 600 113.
4.The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization/PWD,
Quality Control Division,
North High Ground Road,
Anna Nagar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 011,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Organization/PWD,
Quality Control Sub Division, Thoothukudi.
07.03.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
