This court dismissed a writ appeal seeking compassionate appointment filed 20 years after the death of the parent. Following Supreme Court precedents, the court held that such appointments aim to tide over immediate financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a vested right after a unreasonable lapse of time.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2015
CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.A.No.908 of 2015
M.Vimala ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration &
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents/Respondents
This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the order of this court dated 26.04.2011 made in
W.P.No.3318 of 2011.
Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent give
compassionate ground appointment in favour of the petitioner.
For Appellant : Ms.N.Beulah John Selvaraj
For Respondents : Mr.R.Arunmozhi for R-1
Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram,
Spl.G.P for R-2
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)
The instant appeal arises from the order dated 26.04.2011 passed in W.P.No.3318 of 2011.
“2.....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.....”
It was further held as under :
“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.”
“6.Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The Competent Authority has to examine the financial condition of the family
of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing 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. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.”
Thus, the law is well settled that the appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the penurious condition of the dependent family members of the deceased employee dying in harness, in accordance with the policy.
Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vvk
To
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration &
Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
+1cc to M/s.R.Arunmozhi, Advocate, S.R.No.34196
+1cc to Mr.N.Beulah John Selvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.33873
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.33967
W.A.No.908 of 2015
RV(CO)
CA(22/07/2015)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether compassionate appointment can be granted after a lapse of more than 20 years from the death of the employee.
Whether seeking compassionate employment constitutes a vested right enforceable against the government.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Local Administration Department and another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ KumaraveluReferred¶10
Jagdish Prasad v. State of BiharReferred¶20
Haryana SEB v. Hakim SinghReferred¶20
State of U.P v. Paras NathReferred¶20
State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed MirReferred¶20
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶20
CCE & Customs v. Prabhat SinghReferred¶20
MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti SinghReferred¶21
M. Vimala
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
