Madras High Court

J.Ajith Aravind vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 7 March, 2022

                                                                    W.P.(MD) No.11925 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.11925 of 2021
                                                        and
                                             W.M.P.(MD) No.9358 of 2021


                 J.Ajith Aravind                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                           vs.


                 1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
                   TANGEDCO
                   Administrative Branch, Chennai

                 2.The Superintendent Engineer
                   General Distribution Circle
                   TANGEDCO, Madurai                                               ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

                 issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining

                 to         the       impugned   order      dated     27.06.2012         in     Ka.No.

                 3718/205/Ma.Po/Po.Ni.Va/Madu/Uu.Ni.A/Ni.Pi./Oo.4/Ko.Varisu/2012                     of

                 the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the

                 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2015

                 and appoint the petitioner in a suitable post.

                 _______________
                 Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                        W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021



                           For Petitioner      : Mr.Anandkumar.J.

                           For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan, Standing Counsel


                                                        ORDER

The order of rejection, dated 27.06.2012, passed by the second

respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment, is under challenge in this writ petitioner.

2. The father of the petitioner was working as casual labourer on

daily wage basis in the respondent – TANGEDCO from the year 2008 onwards.

He died on 19.03.2011, while he was in service as casual labourer. However,

during the lifetime of the petitioner's father, a proposal was sent to the

Competent Authority for grant of time scale of pay.

3. The learned counel for the petitioner relied on the order passed

by the first respondent, dated 13.01.2012, which shows that steps were taken

to regularize the service of the temporary casual labourers / contract labouers.

Unfortunately, even before the said order, the petitioner died on 19.03.2011,

while he was working as casual labourer on daily wage basis.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the date of death

alone is the criteria for the purpose of extending the benefit of the scheme of

compassionate appointment. A proposal was sent subsequently to the

Competent Authority after the death of the petitioner's father for regularization

of his services. Such a proposal cannot be given effect to in respect of the

dead persons as the scheme of compassionate appointment stipulates that on

the date of death of the employee, he must be a permanent employee of the

Establishment. In the present case, the petitioner's father was not a

permanent employee on the date of his death and furthemore, ten years lapsed

from the date of death of deceased employee.

5. 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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

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.

6. 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 restricted the

compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving

family. 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.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

7. 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 principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

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:

“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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

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 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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

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 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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

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.”

8. This being the factum, this Court do not find any infirmity as

such in the impugned order passed by the second respondent.

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11925 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

krk