M.Neelakandan vs Superintending Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 14977 Mad

                                                                                  W.P.No.27610 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 07.09.2022

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               W.P.No.27610 of 2016
                                                       and
                                              W.M.P.No.23784 of 2016

                     M.Neelakandan                                                    ...Petitioner
                                                           Vs.

                     1.Superintending Engineer,
                       Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                       Erode Distribution Division,
                       Erode, Erode District.

                     2.Additional Chief Engineer,
                       Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
                       Erode Distribution Division,
                       Erode – 9.
                     ..Respondents


                     Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
                     the order passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.007200/532/NIBI
                     2(1)/2015 dated 06.06.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to
                     appoint the petitioner considering the petitioner's application dated
                     23.04.2015.



                     1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       W.P.No.27610 of 2016




                                     For Petitioner        : Mr.C.Vediappan
                                                             For M/s.C.S.Associates

                                     For Respondents       : Mr.P.Subramanian
                                                             For TANGEDCO

                                                             ORDER

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for

compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The father of the writ petitioner was working as Commercial

Inspector and died on 02.04.2010, while he was in service. The mother of the

writ petitioner submitted a representation during the relevant point of time

and made a request to relax the qualifications. However, the case of the

mother was not considered since she was not qualified for appointment on

compassionate grounds. The petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of

his father, who was the employee of the Electricity Board. Thus, on attaining

the age of majority, the petitioner submitted an application on 23.04.2015,

seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was

rejected by the 1st respondent on the ground that the application was

submitted beyond the period of three years as contemplated under the Scheme

in force.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

3. It is further contended that the mother of the writ petitioner

originally submitted an application and her case was not considered on

account of the fact that she was not qualified. However, the second

application submitted by the writ petitioner was also rejected on the ground

that it was submitted beyond the period of three years.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the

petitioner was a minor during the relevant point of time and therefore, he has

submitted an application on attaining the age of majority. Thus, the

application is to be considered on merits.

5. Considering the arguments, recently on 05.09.2022, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs.

Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union [2022 LiveLaw (SC)

739], wherein in paragraph-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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified.”

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

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

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.”

7. Therefore, the principles settled by the Constitutional Courts are that

the scope of the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment, cannot be expanded

by High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. The Scheme must be implemented in its terms

and conditions and therefore, the application of the terms alone to be

considered for the purpose of considering the eligibility for appointment on

compassionate ground.

8. The Scheme of Compassionate Appointment is a concession and an

exception. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed as an

absolute right. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

the rules in force. The equal opportunity in public employment is the

constitutional mandate. The equality clause enunciated under the Constitution

is a fundamental right of every citizen, so as to ensure equal opportunity in

the matter of public employments. Thus, all the eligible candidates, who all

are aspiring to secure public employment, must be provided with an

opportunity for employment by way of Open Competitive Process. Thus, the

compassionate appointment is the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

9. The Scheme, being violative of the constitutional provisions, is to be

implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and in the

event of expanding the scope of the Scheme, which would result in

unconstitutionality. Thus the Courts are not expected to expand the scope of

the Scheme.

10. In view of the fact that the employee died in the year 2010 and the

application itself was submitted beyond the period of three years during the

year 2015, there is no infirmity in respect of the order of rejection passed by

the 1st respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

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

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.09.2022

Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes kak

To

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Distribution Division, Erode, Erode District.

2.The Additional Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode Distribution Division, Erode – 9.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27610 of 2016

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

kak

W.P.No.27610 of 2016

07.09.2022

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