A Writ Appeal challenging the appointment of a petitioner for compassionate grounds. The Court held that a subsequent application cannot be treated as fresh when the earlier application remained pending due to a recruitment ban, and allowed the appeal against Justice.
Writ appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
Writ Appeal (MD) No.343 of 2014
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat (E3) Department, Fort St., George, Chennai – 09.
2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. P.Saravanakumar ... Respondent/Petitioner
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.02.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2010 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in WP(MD). 10539/ 2010 :
Praying for a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent passed in Letter No.2885/E3/2009-3, dated 27.11.2009 and quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in anyone of the Government post under the 2nd Respondent.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Special Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )
The State has come up with the above writ appeal challenging an order passed by the learned Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2.Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants.
3.The respondent's father Thiru.K.Pandi @ Pandian who was employed as Office Assistant in Kayatharu Panchayat Union died in harness on 21.08.2001. The respondent's mother Shanmugathai sent an application to the District Collector, Tuticorin on 08.11.2001 through the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commissioner of the Panchayat Union, seeking employment on compassionate grounds for her younger son by name P.Muthukumar.
4.But the application of the respondent's mother for compassionate appointment of the respondent's younger brother was kept
2
pending by the District Collector on the ground that there was a ban on recruitment at that time. The ban order on recruitment to any post/service was in force from 29.11.2001 to 21.02.2006. Therefore, after the ban order was lifted, the respondent's mother submitted a second application on 16.04.2007. At that time, the application was submitted for the appointment of the respondent.
5.It is relevant to note that at that time, the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.42, Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.03.2007, extending the time limit for receiving the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds by three months from the date of the order. Therefore, the application submitted by the respondent's mother on 16.04.2007 was within the time stipulated by the said Government Order.
6.Unfortunately, the first appellant rejected the request of the respondent's mother by proceedings dated 27.11.2009 on the ground that the request for appointment of the respondent would be treated as a fresh one and that since it had been made beyond a period of three years as stipulated by G.O.Ms.No.120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, the application was belated and could not be entertained. Challenging the said order of the first appellant, dated 27.11.2009, the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10539 of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 16.02.2012. As against the said order, the State has come up with the above appeal.
7.The main ground on which the appellants challenge the impugned order of the learned Judge is that the first application that was submitted within a period of three years was for the younger brother of the respondent. After the ban order was lifted, the respondent's mother abandoned the original application and wanted appointment on compassionate grounds for the respondent herein. Therefore, according to the appellants, the application for the appointment of the respondent ought to be treated only as a fresh application. If so done, that application dated 16.04.2007 was obviously beyond the period of three years prescribed by the said Government Order. Therefore, the appellants contend that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8.We have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants. But the above submissions lose sight of one fundamental aspect. The case on hand does not fall under the category of one of those run-of-the-mill cases. The respondent's mother was very vigilant in making an application for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months of the death of her husband. The employee died in harness on 21.08.2001 and the application was made on 08.11.2001. There is no dispute about the fact that at that time, there was a ban on recruitment. The ban was in force till 21.02.2006. Immediately, after lifting of the ban order, the respondent's mother submitted an application on 16.04.2007. This application is only in continuation of the earlier application. Once, the earlier application had become dormant, the appellants are not entitled to treat the next application as a fresh one, as the fault is not on the part https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the respondent.
9.There is one more important aspect that the appellants have lost sight of. The younger son for whose benefit the respondent's mother made the earliest application unfortunately died on 09.02.2008. It is
3
probably due to his ill-health, that the respondent's mother had to seek employment for the respondent.
10.The rules and executive instructions relating to compassionate appointment cannot be used as Euclid's theorem. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 has laid down certain guidelines relating to the grant of compassionate appointment as under:-.
"20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts".
11.Therefore, treating of the application of the respondent as a fresh one can certainly not be approved by this Court. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Rural Development and Panchayat (E3) Department, Fort St., George, Chennai – 09.
+1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 14068. TS/14.03.2014/3P-5C
Writ Appeal (MD) No.343 of 2014 04.03.2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second application for compassionate appointment can be treated as a fresh application subject to the limitation period.
Whether the fault of the State in delaying recruitment due to a ban can be treated as the fault of the dependent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat (E3) Department
District Collector, Tuticorin District
P. Saravanakumar
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
V. M. VELUMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court