Muthulakshmi v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner vs.
1.The District Collector Dindigul 2.The Executive Officer Sriramapuram Panchayat Union Sriramapuram and Post Dindigul West Taluk Dindigul District ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1489/2016, dated 07.01.2019, passed by the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to give any appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Baalasundharam For Respondents :
Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate
O R D E R
The impugned order dated 07.01.2019, passed by the second respondent, states in clear terms that the brother of the writ petitioner one Mr.Subramani is working in Canara Bank at Sriramapuram Branch as permanent employee and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment.
2. The father of the petitioner, namely, Thandapani served as Water Tank Watchman in Sriramapuram Panchayat Union and he died on 04.12.2014 while he was in service. At the time of death, the petitioner's father was aged 53 years. The brother of the petitioner is working in Canara Bank as permanent employee. Therefore, the respondents found that the petitioner's family is not in penurious circumstances and rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 1/5
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that penurious circumstances or indigent circumstances of a family is the live-link for the purpose of considering the application for compassionate appointment. In the event of not establishing the factum of indigent circumstances, the applicant would not be eligible to get appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointments on compassionate grounds have to be provided strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme for compassionate appointment. Any violation would result in infringement of the constitutional rights of all other citizens, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment is to be restricted only to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of the employee.
4. 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 2/5
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 3/5
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. 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."
4/5
"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."
5. In the present case, the impugned order categorically states that the brother of the petitioner is working in Canara Bank as permanent employee and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to get appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court does not find any error or infirmity in the reasons furnished for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) krk To:
1.The District Collector, Dindigul.
2.The Executive Officer, Sriramapuram Panchayat Union, Sriramapuram and Post, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-4789[F] dated 08/02/2022 ) 07.02.2022 nsn(CO) TR(15.02.2022) 5P 4C 5/5