Madras High Court

J.Jenima vs The Director General Of Police on 24 March, 2022

                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.17926 of 2021



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 24.03.2022

                                                        CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                              W.P.(MD) No.17926 of 2021
                                                        and
                                             W.M.P.(MD) No.14790 of 2021


                     J.Jenima                                                       ... Petitioner

                                                           -vs-

                     1. The Director General of Police,
                        Headquarters, Beach Road,
                        Triplicane, Chennai 8.

                     2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
                        Tirunelveli Range, Maharaja Nagar,
                        Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 11.

                     3. The Commissioner of Police,
                        Tirunelveli City, Palayamkottai,
                        Tirunelveli 2.                                              ... 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 in
                     pursuant     to   the   impugned      order   of   the   3rd   respondent       in


                     ___________
                     Page 1 of 12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               W.P.(MD) No.17926 of 2021



                     Na.Ka.No.A4/8129/2019, dated 04.09.2020 and quash the same as illegal
                     and consequently direct the respondents to provide compassionate
                     appointment to the petitioner considering the petitioner's qualifications
                     within a specified time frame fixed by this Court.

                                  For Petitioner     :         Mr.R.M.Suresh

                                  For Respondents    :         Mr.D.Sadiq Raja,
                                                               Additional Government Pleader

                                                          ******

                                                         ORDER

The order of rejection dated 04.09.2020 rejecting the claim of the

writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the

present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that her father Late.I.Jeyasingh, was

working as Special Sub Inspector of Police in the Melapalayam Police

Station, which falls under the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent and died on

30.03.2019 while he was in service.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.17926 of 2021

3. The petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee.

The mother of the writ petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in

the Panchayat Union Primary School, Indira Nagar, Nanguneri Taluk,

Tirunelveli District.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the terms and

conditions of compassionate appointment are to be followed scrupulously.

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.17926 of 2021

5. 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.

6. 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.17926 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.17926 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.17926 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.17926 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.17926 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.17926 of 2021

7. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment, if any of the

legal heir is employed either in Government or private sector, then he/she is

not eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme of compassionate

appointment.

8. In the present case, the wife of the deceased employed is

working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Primary

School. Taking note of the above fact, the authorities rejected the

application for compassionate appointment. Thus, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there is no infirmity in respect of the order of

rejection passed and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.