Madras High Court

K.Ramamoorthy vs The Principal Director on 4 July, 2023

                                                                                     WP.No.19623 of 2023

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 04.07.2023

                                                           CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUIMAR

                                                    WP.No.19623 of 2023

                  K.Ramamoorthy                                                          .. Petitioner
                                                            Versus

                  1.The Principal Director
                  Government of Tamil Nadu
                  Highways & Rural Work Department
                  Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005

                  2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways)
                  Naboard Highways and Rural Work Department
                  Chengalpet Region                                                  .. Respondents

                  Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                  praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to
                  consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2009 and give a suitable
                  job to the petitioner on the ground of compassionate ground.

                                  For Petitioner      :   Mr.T.Arul

                                  For Respondents    :    Mr.P.Baladhandayutham for R1 to R3
                                                          Special Government Pleader
                                                          Mr.V.Ramesh for R4
                                                          Government Advocate

                                                           ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 1 & 2

to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2009 and give a suitable https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.No.19623 of 2023

job to the petitioner on the ground of compassionate appointment.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a diploma holder in Electrical &

Electronic Engineering and immediately, after the death of his father, he has

given an application during the year 2009. Further, he has completed all the

requirements as sought by the authorities, however, no order order has been

made.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

4. It is relevant to note that the very object of providing compassionate

appointment is to alleviate the distress of the family in need and immediate

sustenance to maintain the family. The very allegation of the application, itself

clearly indicate that the father died in the year 2009, thereafter, the petitioner

also did his job, married and leading a family life with three children. Such

view of the matter, since the compassionate appointment is the exception to the

general rule, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Thus, this Court

is of the view that the representation made in the year 2009, that too, after a

lapse of almost 14 years, now, seeking a direction to the respondent for

consideration, cannot be granted. Even the Honourable Supreme Court in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP.No.19623 of 2023

case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30],

has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of

compassionate appointment. For better appreciation, 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;

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

WP.No.19623 of 2023

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

WP.No.19623 of 2023

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

WP.No.19623 of 2023

did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case.”

5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for

the appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, this writ petition

stands dismissed. No costs.

04.07.2023

dhk Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

1.The Principal Director Government of Tamil Nadu Highways & Rural Work Department Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005

2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Naboard Highways and Rural Work Department Chengalpet Region

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

WP.No.19623 of 2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.