Kajimani.S.P v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM S.P.Kajimani ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector The District Collectorate Ramanathapuram District 2.The Block Development Officer Block Development Officer Mudukulathur Taluk Ramanathapuram Office ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Na.Ka.Vi3/47689/2019, dated 01.12.2020, issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to any eligible post on compassionate ground.

For Petitioner :

No appearance For Respondents :

Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The order of rejection, dated 01.12.2020, passed by the first respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The father of the petitioner Late.Paramasivam was working as Deputy Block Development Officer at Mudukulathur and died on 09.08.2016, while he was in service. During the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor and not eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the wife of the deceased / mother of the petitioner had not submitted any application seeking appointment for her. The application submitted by the petitioner, after a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee was rejected by the Authorities. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move this writ petition on the ground that even before three years, he has submitted application and therefore, his request is to be considered. 1/6

3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the first application submitted by the petitioner need not be entertained as the petitioner was minor during the relevant point of time. Thus, the application submitted by the petitioner after attaining the majority is to be considered as a valid application. However, the said application was submitted beyond the period of three years. In the event of no eligible member in the family of the deceased employee for providing compassionate appointment, the scheme of the compassionate appointment cannot be extended beyond the period stipulated and it is not as if one appointment is to be provided to the family of the deceased employee. The scheme of compassionate appointment has been implemented to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the employee and therefore, only if the conditions are fulfilled, the Authorities have to consider the case for appointment, but not otherwise.

4. 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.

5. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility are 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. 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 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 2/6

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 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 3/6

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 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 nonmanual 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.

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 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."

7. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (A/c) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) krk 5/6

To:

1.The District Collector, The District Collectorate, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Officer, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10177[F] dated 04/03/2022 ) 03.03.2022 SE(CO) GC(15.03.2022) 6P 4C 6/6