Madras High Court

A.Latha vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 11 October, 2022

                                                                                  W.P.No.36820 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 11.10.2022

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 W.P.No.36820 of 2016

                     A.Latha                                                          ...Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The State of Tamilnadu,
                       Represented by its Principal Secretary,
                       Department of Revenue,
                       Chief Secretariat,
                       Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The District Collector,
                       District Collectorate,
                       Perundurai Road,
                       Erode – 638 011.                                              ..Respondents


                     Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner
                     in a suitable post on compassionate grounds based on the filed enquiry report
                     of the Revenue Inspector, Modakurichi, dated 09.02.2007.




                    1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         W.P.No.36820 of 2016

                                     For Petitioner         : Mr.M.R.Thangavel

                                     For R1 and R2          : Mr.D.Gopal
                                                              Government Advocate


                                                              ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to

direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post on

compassionate grounds based on the filed enquiry report of the Revenue

Inspector, Modakurichi, dated 09.02.2007.

2. The petitioner states that her father was employed as Village

Assistant in Nanjai Uthukuli village, Modakurichi Taluk, Erode District and

died on 08.09.2004, while he was in service. The mother of the writ petitioner

submitted an application on 25.11.2006 to provide appointment to her

daughter/Smt.A.Latha (writ petitioner herein) on compassionate grounds.

When the application was pending, the petitioner got married to a person of

his own choice and thereafter, the mother of the writ petitioner changed the

nomination and made a request to the authorities to provide appointment to

her third daughter/Smt.Gomathi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

3. The request of the mother of the writ petitioner was rejected by the

2nd respondent in proceedings dated 29.10.2009 itself. The said order of

rejection was not challenged by the mother of the writ petitioner and

accordingly, the application submitted by the spouse of the deceased

employee was closed and thereafter, no action was taken.

4. Once an application is made to provide appointment on

compassionate ground by the legal heir of the deceased employee and the

said application was rejected by the competent authority, the same became

final and thereafter, any other application by other legal heirs are not

entertainable with reference to the terms and conditions of the scheme for

compassionate appointment. In other words, the second application under the

scheme of compassionate appointment is not maintainable.

5. Even the order of rejection was passed regarding the change of

nomination, the claim itself became lapsed on account of the fact that the

spouse of the deceased employee changed the nomination and the said

nomination was rejected and as far as the first daughter, who is the writ

petitioner is concerned, she got married and separated from the family. When

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

the petitioner got married and living separately along with her husband, then

she cannot be said to be a dependent of the deceased employee's family and

therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity regarding the order of rejection

passed by the respondents in the year 2009. However, the said order of

rejection was not challenged by the spouse of the deceased employee and

became final.

6. Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot

be claimed as an absolute right. Scheme being an exception, cannot be

expanded for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate

grounds in a larger manner. Large scale compassionate appointment would

result in infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the eligible citizen, who

all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive

process. Scheme of compassionate appointment being a concession, is to be

implemented in a restricted manner, so as to provide appointment only to the

families, who all are genuinely in penurious circumstances and in this regard,

the authorities competent are bound to conduct field inspections and ascertain

the imminent circumstances, warranting an appointment on compassionate

grounds.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

7. It is not as if one appointment is to be granted to the family of the

deceased employee and it is not as if every legal heir can submit the

application and thereafter, the appointment is to be considered. Once an

application is filed by any one of the legal heir of the deceased employee and

the said legal heir became ineligible, it is not as if that other legal legal heir

can submit an application irrespective of the length of time. In the event of

entertaining such repeated applications for compassionate appointment, the

very purpose and object of the scheme would be defeated.

8. The very purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate

appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden

death of an employee. Therefore, the scheme cannot be expanded nor any

consideration is to be shown on misplaced sympathy, which would result in

denial of Fundamental Right to all other eligible candidates, who all are

longing to secure public employment. Thus, the Courts are not expected to

grant compassionate appointment on misplaced sympathy. Such sympathy

would result in unconstitutionality. Scheme being violative of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India, since there is no merit assessment of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

applicant and there is no application of rule of reservation, there is no other

assessment is made for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the event

of large scale compassionate appointment, the efficiency level in the public

administration will also be in stake. The Rule of Reservation, merit

assessment and no other assessment has been made and therefore, the large

scale appointments causing inefficiency in public administration, which would

result in violations of the Constitution provisions, since the Constitution

mandates an efficient public administration.

9. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual

inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden

death of an employee became vanished. Thus, Courts have repeatedly held

that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after several years.

10. Even to ascertain the indigent circumstances, the pensionary

benefits are also to be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court of India

in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Amrita Sinha in C.A.No.7640

–7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 (2021 15 Scale 174) held in Paragraph

No.10 as follows :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

“The monthly pension which was payable to the respondent was required to be taken into account in the award of merit points. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that pension is paid for past service rendered by the employee and, hence, denial of compassionate appointment on that basis was not justifiable. This reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious.

Undoubtedly, pension is not an act of bounty, but is towards the service which has been rendered by an employee. However, in evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon the death while in service.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is provided in order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service. If the scheme requires that the family pension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application, it has to be followed.”

11. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika

Kamgar Union reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739], wherein in paragraph-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

8 of its judgment, reiterated the principles to be adopted for providing

appointment on compassionate grounds as under:-

“8. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified.”

12. Even in yet another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. NITIN reported in [2022

LiveLaw (SC) 690] , wherein in paragraphs 20 and 21, it has been held as

under:-

“20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.

21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress.”

13(a). Even recently on 30.09.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of The State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Ms.Madhuri

Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Smt.Madhuri Santhosh Koli),

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820, laid down the principles as follows:

“5. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, 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 summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) 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;

(iv) 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;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

6. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

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.

6.1 . ........... Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289.......

“21. ............

“2. ..........As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. ................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.

...............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. ........

26. ......Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

[(2008) 11 SCC 384] 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.....

7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and 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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7.1. ........Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

13 (b). Yet another judgment in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals

Travancore Ltd & Ors. Vs. Anusree K.B. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

819, the Apex Court held as follows:

“9. ...........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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

9.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.”

14. In the present writ petition, the case of the writ petitioner was not

considered independently as the original application submitted by the mother

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.36820 of 2016

of the writ petitioner was withdrawn, since the mother of the writ petitioner

changed the nomination and the said application was rejected. Therefore, the

case of the writ petitioner at this length of time cannot be considered by the

competent authorities. More so, already 18 years lapsed from the date of

death of the deceased employee and the petitioner got married and living

separately with her husband. Thus, this Court cannot grant the relief as such

sought for in the present writ petition, in view of the principles laid down by

the Apex Court of India.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.