Ahilseshan T.K. v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM T.K.Ahilseshan ... Petitioner -vsThe District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

... Respondent Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent i.e. the District Collector, Virudhunagar passed in his e/f/vz;/m6/462/2020 ehs; 09.08.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to provide compassionate ground appointment to the petitioner in Group-III service within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents :

Mr.M.Ramesh, Government Advocate

O R D E R

The order of rejection dated 09.08.2021, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The father of the writ petitioner Late.Mr.T.Karuppasamy, was serving as Senior Revenue Inspector in the Taluk Office, Srivilliputhur and died on 09.11.2019 while he was in service. Admittedly, the mother of the writ petitioner was serving as Bill Collector in the Town Panchayat, Mamsapuram during the relevant point of time, when the father of the writ petitioner died. Subsequently, she resigned her job on 07.05.2020 on medical grounds. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the application was rejected by the respondent on 09.08.2021 on the

ground that the mother of the writ petitioner was working as a Bill Collector in the Town Panchayat on the date of the death of the deceased employee. However, she resigned her job and therefore, the indigent circumstances of the family ought to have been considered by the respondents.

4.This Court is of the considered opinion that the scheme being a concession, the Courts by interpretation, cannot expand its scope. The date of death would be relevant for all purposes to consider the eligibility to avail the benefit of appointment. Application date may not be relevant, as three years period has been fixed for submission of application.

Eligible applicants may submit application at any time within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee. In other words, the date of application may vary from case to case and therefore, such a date may not be a relevant factor for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of a person to provide compassionate appointment. Eligibility is based on the date of the death of an employee and the scheme prevailing as on the date of death. Therefore, the scheme is to be implemented taking note of the death date and not the date of application.

5.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 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 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. 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.

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."

6.In the present case, on the date of death, when the wife of the deceased employee was working as Bill Collector in the Town Panchayat, then a factual inference is to be drawn that the family was not in penurious circumstances and if that is the inference which is to be drawn then the other legal heirs are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

7.The very scheme itself reveals that the family must be in indigent circumstances as on the date of death of the employee. The subsequent developments in the family or occurrences or incidents in the family would not be a ground to claim compassionate appointment and in the event considering the subsequent events in the family, then there is a possibility that many such families would claim the benefit of compassionate appointment, which would defeat the purpose and object of the scheme. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity as such in respect of the reasons furnished for rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) abr

To The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10616[F] dated 08/03/2022 ) 07.03.2022 MGJ(25.03.2022) 6P 3C