Madras High Court
B.Suga Solai Raja vs The District Collector on 5 June, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.(MD)No.832 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.832 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6178 and 6179 of 2024
B.Suga Solai Raja ... Appellant
vs
1.The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Collectorate, Pudukottai.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Aranthangi-Village Panchayat,
Block Development Office,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order of this Court dated 18.02.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.12653 of
2021.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Sathish Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
*****
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.832 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2022 in
W.P.(MD)No.12653 of 2022, whereby, the claim of the petitioner to provide
compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant or any other suitable post in
view of the death of his father, was rejected.
2.The short facts involved in the appeal is that the Writ Petitioner's
father G.Balasubramanian worked as a Block Development Officer in
Aranthangi Panchayat Union Office, Pudukottai District, died on
04.01.2016, while he was in service. His mother, predeceased his father on
02.07.2014 and as such, the Writ Petitioner along with one married and
another unmarried sisters faced severe financial crises. On the date of death
of his father, the Writ Petitioner was a minor and submitted an application
on 10.10.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment. However, the
District Collector/first respondent by order, dated 18.02.2019 rejected the
claim of the Writ Petitioner on the ground that the Writ petitioner has not
attained the age of majority on the date of death of his father and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he again submitted an application on 28.09.2019 after attaining the age of
majority. But, however, the same was also dismissed by order, dated
28.09.2020 on the ground that the application has not been made within
three years from the date of death of the father. Challenging the rejection of
the application for compassionate appointment, the appellant preferred the
Writ Petition.
3.The learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the
scheme of compassionate appointment is to be implemented strictly in
compliance with the scheme in vogue and as the appellant's father died in
the year 2016 and application was filed after three years already more than
five years have lapsed, the Writ Petitioner cannot claim for appointment as a
matter of right. Challenging the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition,
the appellant is before this Court.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
initially, the application for compassionate appointment was filed on
10.10.2018 itself, which was rejected, as the appellant was a minor at that
time and therefore, the second application was filed seeking compassionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointment on 28.09.2020, but sill the second application also was rejected
on the ground that the application was not made within three years. The
learned Counsel further contended that the appellant has lost both his
parents and his family is in penurious circumstances and the object of
providing compassionate employment itself is only to bail out the deceased
family from the penurious circumstances due to the sudden death of the
employee and therefore, the order passed rejecting the claim is against the
very intention of the scheme.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that any application for compassionate appointment
can be considered only as per the scheme framed for providing
compassionate appointment and since admittedly, the appellant was a minor
at the time of death of the employee and the application filed seeking
compassionate appointment was not within the period of three years as
mandated under the Government Order, his application has rightly been
rejected, which needs no interference and therefore, he sought for dismissal
of this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Heard the learned Counsels on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7.The appellant's father, who worked as Block Development Officer
in the Aranthangi Panchayat Union Office, Pudukottai, died while in service
on 04.01.2016. Admittedly, on the date of death of the appellant's father, he
was a minor and his earlier application filed was rejected on that ground and
the second application was submitted by the appellant after attaining
majority on 28.09.2020 seeking compassionate appointment. As the
application submitted was beyond the period of three years and the terms
under the compassionate appointment scheme mandate that any application
seeking compassionate appointment has to be filed within a period of three
years, the same came to be rejected by orders of the first respondent.
8.The compassionate appointment is provided under a scheme by
which, the Government provides employment to a member of a deceased
employee's family, who died while in service only to enable the family to
tide over the sudden loss considering the penurious circumstances of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
family at that time due to the death of the deceased employee. The
compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the application seeking
for compassionate appointment cannot be made after a long delay, which is
not the purpose for which, the scheme of compassionate employment is
provided.
9.It is useful to refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1)Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana and others, reported
in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the relevant paragraphs are read as follows:
“2. The question relates to the considerations which should
guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate
ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on
the issue. 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 of such family a post much less a post for post
held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
.....
6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in
the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right
which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable
the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of
the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment
cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the
crisis is over.
7. It is needless to emphasise that the provisions for compassionate
employment have necessarily to be made by the rules or by the
executive instructions issued by the Government or the public authority
concerned. The employment cannot be offered by an individual
functionary on an ad hoc basis.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2)State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs Prakash Chand,
reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285, the relevant paragraph is read as follows:
“10. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to rewrite the terms of
the Policy. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a
matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State
lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of
the family of a deceased government employee.”
(3)N.C.Santhosh vs State of Karnataka, reported in (2020) 7 SCC
617, the relevant paragraphs are read as follows:
“18. In the most recent judgment in State of H.P. v. Shashi
Kumar [State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1
SCC (L&S) 542] the earlier decisions governing the principles of
compassionate appointment were discussed and analysed. Speaking for
the Bench, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J. reiterated that appointment to any
public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of
principles in accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The
dependants of a deceased government employee are made eligible by
virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfil
the norms laid down by the State's policy.
19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out
from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that
the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application,
should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate
appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of
any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can
only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however,
disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as
applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(4)Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited and others -vs-
Anushree K.B., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331, the relevant
paragraphs are read as follows:
“18. 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.
19. 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.”
(5)State of West Bengal -vs- Debabrata Tiwari and others, reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, the relevant paragraphs are read as follows:
“32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a
departure from the general provisions providing for appointment
to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment.
Since such a provision enables appointment being made without
following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to
the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to
achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by
the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the
dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of
livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over
the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be
exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment
cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the
crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to
keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all
relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of
the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by
the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members,
together with the income from any other source.
33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide
over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has
left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of
pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that
unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in
a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving
gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may
be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it
would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the
dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on
account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is
also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters
concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a
long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased
employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this
would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the
authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of
compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.
34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for
compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee
would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants
of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds.
The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the
death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide
the authorities' decision in the matter.
35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first
instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate
appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are
of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either
on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or
the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted
and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the
deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death
of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other
relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged
period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain
themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some
other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as
noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim
for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the
Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right
and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced
by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a
consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may
not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the
death of the government employee.”
10.Further, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and
Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, with a comprehensive set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of guidelines, in respect of appointment on compassionate ground. The
time limit for filing application and age has been dealt with, which are
extracted hereunder:
“TIME LIMIT TO PREPRE THE APPLICATION
The application for the compassionate ground appointment may
be submitted within 3 yeas from the date of death of the Government
servants.
TIME LIMIT FOR THOSE ELIGIBLE UNDER
COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENT
(i) The minimum age is 18 years at the time of submitting
application for compassionate ground appointment.
(ii) The maximum age limit for the spouse / father / mother
is 50 years on the date of death of the Government servant.
(iii) The maximum age limit for the son of daughter of the
deceased Government Servant and unmarried brother / unmarried
sister of the unmarried deceased Government Servant is 40 years at the
time of applying.
11.Therefore, in view of G.O.(Ms).No.18, Labour and Employment
(Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, which is in vogue at the time of
consideration of the application submitted by the appellant, any application
seeking appointment on compassionate ground would be submitted within a
period of three years from the date of death of the Government servant.
Further, the issue regarding submitting the application within the specified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period of three years was settled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in
W.P(MD)No.7010 of 2011 and batch, dated 11.03.2020. In the instant case,
admittedly, the application seeking compassionate appointment has not been
submitted within the period of three years, but however, has been submitted
after that period. Further, as more than five years had passed from the date
of death of the appellant's father, the learned Judge by taking note of the
fact that the scheme of compassionate appointment is provided to a member
of the deceased family only to tied over the crisis considering the penurious
situation and having found that the application was not filed within the time
prescribed under the scheme, has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition, which
need no interference. Accordingly, the order passed by the Writ Court is
sustained and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
[R.S.K., J] & [G.A.M., J]
05.06.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Collectorate, Pudukottai.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Aranthangi-Village Panchayat,
Block Development Office,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
