Petitioner sought compassionate appointment as scavenger after father's death. Court held that existing employment of wife and mother disqualifies the claim. Petiton was dismissed for delay.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12-09-2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.10408 of 2016
L.Suresh .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepaukkam,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Joint Director (Municipality),
The Directorate of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepaukkam,
Chennai-600 005. .. Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the application dated 25.5.2015 and appoint the petitioner as Scavanger or any suitable post on compassionate grounds.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate.
O R D E R
The order of rejection dated 25.5.2015 issued by the second
2
respondent in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for
compassionate ground is under challenge in this writ petition.
as Scavenger in the Municipality of Walajapet and passed away on 18.8.2011 while he was in service.
3
the Courts.
8.I t is pertinent to note the fact that in a liberalized world as of today, there are plenty of avenues of employment available to the general public. Most of the people are not entirely dependent on the income of a single member of the family. Keeping this new social http://www.judis.nic.in
4
structure in mind, it would be seemingly right for the Courts to ensure that there is no abuse of the scheme of compassionate appointment either by the employer or by the applicant/claimant.
5
competent has to implement it in its strict terms. Equal opportunity in a public employment is a constitution mandate.
constitutional mandated requirements have been followed. Thus, very scheme itself is an exception and not in accord with the constitutional scheme. Compassionate appointment scheme as a special one necessarily to be restricted to the extent possible, so as to provide appointment only to the genuine and warranting families. This apart, the
over all strength of the compassionate appointees should not exceed more than the restricted level and if such a kind of special appointments
are increased in the public posts, this Court is of the view that the http://www.judis.nic.in
6
efficiency level in the public administration will certainly be affected.
been followed in compassionate appointment. Thus large number of compassionate appointments will have certain implication on the Rules of Reservation and the same will certainly have an impact on the Constitution of India, more specifically, on the principles of reservation. In respect of the merit aspect, no competitive examination or interview are conducted for compassionate appointees. Thus the very capability of the candidates in performing the administrative duties itself will be in question. Certain amount of merit assessment is certainly required for appointing a candidate in any public posts.
to be reconsidered by the Government and it should be restricted so as to provide appointment only to the legal heirs of the deceased in genuine circumstances. Otherwise, the scheme of compassionate appointment will have a negative impacts on the good governance and further, it will affect the chances of the meritorious candidates, who can participate in the public administration in the better manner.
scheme violating the same has to be implemented cautiously and http://www.judis.nic.in
7
restrictedly. Thus, genuineness of the claim made by the person on compassionate grounds to be strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and further, the State cannot be going on extending the scope of compassionate appointment so as to dilute the principles of reservation under the Constitution.
to be cautious while extending the benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased employee and the legal presumption in this regard is that the indigent circumstances certainly vanishes after a lapse of long years.
(i) In Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others
{(2000) 7 SCC 192} , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph-3 of its judgment, held as under:-
“3. We are unable to agree with the
submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread
8
earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others (supra). It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.”
(ii)In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and
Others {(1994) 4 SCC 138} , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph
6 of its judgment, 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 bread-winner, the
9
compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
(iii) In State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin {(2003) 7 SCC
511} , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 11 of its judgment, held as under:-
“In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs.
Union of India and others (1989 (4) SCC 468)
it was observed that in all claims of appointments on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) vs. Union of India and others (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 689) and Union of India and others vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476). In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others (1998 (5) SCC 192) it was observed that in matter of compassionate
10
appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends, meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and there nullity the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.”
(iv)In Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan
Das and Others {(2008) 15 SCC 560} , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 15 of its judgment, held as under:-
“This Court in a large number of decisions has held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a
11
matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down therefor, viz., that the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. [See General Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475, para 33]”
(v) In MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh {(2014)
13 SCC 583} , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of its judgment, held as under:-
“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 bread-earner. Mere death of a Government employee in harness does not
12
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.
7. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court has considered the nature of the right which a dependant can claim while seeking employment on compassionate ground. The Court observed as under:–
“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.…. The exception to the rule made in
13
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. ... The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of the deceased’s family.
* * * *
6. ... The consideration for such
employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis.....” (Emphasis added)
8. An ‘ameliorating relief’ should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated.
9. The Courts and the Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments.
10. In A. Umarani v Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4504, while dealing with the issue, this Court held that even the Supreme Court should not
14
exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 issuing a direction to give compassionate appointment in contravention of the provisions of the Scheme/Rules etc., as the provisions have to be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the scheme would be illegal.
11. The word ‘vested’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1563, as:
“vested.----fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute “vested rights”.
12. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page 1397, ‘vested’ is defined as Law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest. (Vide: Bibi Sayeeda v State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 516; and J.S. Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 570)
15
13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/ scheme could be changed. (Vide: Kuldip Singh v Government, NCT Delhi AIR 2006 SC 2652).
14. A scheme containing an in pari materia clause, as is involved in this case was considered by this Court in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661. Clause 14 of the said Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the scheme involved herein, which reads as under:
“14. Date of effect of the scheme and disposal of pending applications.--The Scheme will come into force with effect from the date it is approved by the Board of Directors. Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this new Scheme is approved by the Board will be dealt with in accordance with Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill all the terms and conditions of this scheme.”
15. The Court considered various aspects
16
of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of India & Anr. (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be considered.”
(vi)This Court in a judgment in W.P.No. 8773 of 2015
dated 27.07.2017 held as follows:-
“ 11. India being a socialistic republic, keeps evolving various schemes to further the objectives enshrined in Part IV of our Constitution. It is relevant to take note of the fact that State is required to endeavour for promoting the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political should prevail. The State is also required to make effective provisions for securing the right to work and to public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness, disablement and
17
any other causes of undeserved want. As a part of promotion of the welfare of those recruited by the State to various services established by it, the necessity to provide for employment opportunities to the members of the family of the deceased Government servants has arisen.
18
might have contributed meaningfully, given the fact that whatever marginally that would make a difference, to the States 'Service and consequently the State Government would have earned the goodwill from its grateful citizens for the quality of services rendered to them, by those servants including the deceased employee'.
19
over service of the deceased employee before he attains the age of superannuation should not be less than a reasonable period, say three years or at best five years. Similarly, a stipulation that appointment on compassionate grounds should be claimed as quickly as possible after the death of the civil servant, a duration in this regard can be prescribed not to exceed by a reasonable length of time of say three years or at best five years. If the surviving members of the civil servant who died, can get along and carry on their show for considerable length of time after the departure of the breadwinner, by far, in a reasonable manner, interference can be drawn from that the family of the deceased civil servant is able to feed for itself, notwithstanding the loss of the breadwinner. The period of endurance of such a family holds out an assurance that the family has got over the trauma caused by the departure of the breadwinner, and it has the necessary social resources to carry on with the show in his absence as well.
20
and also in view of the fact that making appointments on compassionate grounds is not one of the identified/marked sources of recruitment to civil service--rather it is an exception to the normal constitutional norm of allowing all people to contest and compete-appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be made after long years gave gone by, from the date of the death of the civil servant.
21
employment. It would also tend to convert the scheme of compassionate appointments into a source of recruitment altogether and both the aforementioned factors are not the pursuits, which should be allowed to be undertaken or encouraged by the State Government and its organs.”
raised in this writ petition need no further consideration and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
12-09-2017
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Svn To
1.The Director of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepaukkam, Chennai-600 005.
22
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
W.P.No.10408 of 2016
23
12-09-2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a son can be appointed on compassionate grounds when the deceased employee's wife and mother are also employed in the municipality.
Whether the claim for compassionate appointment filed after a lapse of over two decades is maintainable.
Whether compassionate appointment overrides reservation rules and merit-based selection in public employment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶53
Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others {(2000) 7 SCC 192} · Who else cites this
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and OthersRelied on¶6011494
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others {(1994) 4 SCC 138} · Who else cites this
State of Manipur vs. Md. RajaodinRelied on¶67
State of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin {(2003) 7 SCC 511} · Who else cites this
Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶69
Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others (1989 (4) SCC 468) · Who else cites this
Phoolwati (Smt.) vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶69
Phoolwati (Smt.) vs. Union of India and others (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 689 · Who else cites this
Union of India and others vs. Bhagwan SinghRelied on¶69
Union of India and others vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995 (6) SCC 476) · Who else cites this
Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar and othersRelied on¶69
Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others (1998 (5) SCC 192) · Who else cites this
Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das and OthersRelied on¶75
Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Madhusudan Das and Others {(2008) 15 SCC 560} · Who else cites this
General Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs. Anju JainRelied on¶79
General Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs. Anju Jain (2008) 8 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti SinghRelied on¶81
MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh {(2014) 13 SCC 583} · Who else cites this
A. Umarani v Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors.Relied on¶98
A. Umarani v Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4504 · Who else cites this
State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj KumarRelied on¶108
State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 · Who else cites this
W.P.No. 8773 of 2015Relied on¶114
W.P.No. 8773 of 2015
L.Suresh
The Director of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam
The Joint Director (Municipality), The Directorate of Municipal Administration
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
