K.Ravisankar vs The Chief Engineer (Recruitment)
2022 Latest Caselaw 4382 Mad

                                                                          W.P.(MD) No.14321 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.14321 of 2021


                 K.Ravisankar                                                            ... Petitioner
                                                               vs.


                 1.The Chief Engineer (Recruitment)
                   TNGEDCO
                   No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2

                 2.The Superintending Engineer
                   TNGEDCO
                   Thoothukudi Distribution Circle
                   Thoothukudi                                                           ... 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

                 oder       issued    by   the   2nd    respondent   in    his   proceedings     Kaditha.No.

                 1238/48/Me.Pa.Po/Thud/NeB2/Uoo2/Ko.compassionate Job/2021 dated Nil.

                 03.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the

                 respondents to give suitable job to the petitioner on the compassionate

                 grounds.


                 _______________
                 Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                  W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021


                           For Petitioner    : Mr.Mohan Gandhi.S.M.

                           For Respondents : Mr.S.Arivalagan, Standing Counsel


                                                       ORDER

The order dated Nil.03.2021, passed by the second respondent,

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under

challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his father was working as Foreman

Grade-I in the respondent – TANGEDCO and died on 06.01.2003, while he was

in service. The petitioner's mother submitted application on 18.11.2005,

within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee

to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to her elder son

Mr.Srinivasan. However, when the application was in process before the

Competent Authority, a family dispute arose on account of the second

marriage by the deceased employee. A counter claim was raised by the other

wife and therefore, the parties have approached the Civil Court of law for

getting appropriate orders. Meanwhile, the application submitted by the

petitioner's mother to provide compassionate appointment to her elder son

was not pursued and even after the succession certificate was issued by the

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

competent Court, the petitioner's mother had not requested to provide

appointment to her elder son, contrarily, the application submitted was

abandoned and fresh application was submitted by the petitioner on

16.09.2014 for providing compassionate appointment to him.

3. The question arises whether the second application by the

second legal heir of the deceased employee under the scheme of

compassionate appointment is entertainable or not.

4. This Court is of the opinion that after dissolving the dispute

before the competent Civil Court, if the first application for the first legal heir

is not pursued, then it is presumed he got employment somewhere and

gainfully working. Even private employment would disentitle the family of the

deceased employee from availing the benefit of compassionate appointment.

5. This being the scope of compassionate appointment, the

application submitted by the petitioner to provide employment after a lapse of

11 years from the date of death of the deceased employee cannot be

considered and as on today, already 17 years lapsed from the date of the death

of the employee. Thus, efflux of time is to be construed as penurious

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

circumstance arose on account of the sudden death of the employee became

vanished.

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 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 has also restricted the

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

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.

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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

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;

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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

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 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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

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 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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

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 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

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

[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 such view of the matter, this Court do not find any infirmity

as such in the impugned order passed by the second respondent.

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

07.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

krk

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

krk

W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2021

07.03.2022

_______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis