Petitioner sought compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father. Court held that second applications are not entertainable and appointment cannot be granted after a prolonged lapse of time. Writ dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition dismissed.
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.
WP No.21963 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01-12-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.21963 of 2019 And WMP No.21196 of 2019
P.Janakiraman .. Petitioner vs.
1.Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
2.General Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
1/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
records in respect of the letter No.CMWSSB/P&A/RA4/34013/2009 dated 19.04.2018 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider the compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the place of his mother.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ayyamperumal
For Respondents : Mr.Krishna Ravindran, Standing Counsel for TWAD.
O R D E R
The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner
for appointment on compassionate ground, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the application
submitted by the mother of the writ petitioner was rejected and the writ petitioner submitted an application in the year 2016, after attaining the age of majority.
3. The petitioner states that his father late Mr.M.Pachaippan was
employed in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board on
2/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
05.11.2007, while he was in service. Admittedly, at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, he was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
4. The mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application, seeking an appointment on compassionate ground on 23.07.2009 and the said application was not considered by the Competent Authorities. Since the mother was aged, thereafter, she has filed another application in the year 2016 to provide appointment for her son, who is the petitioner herein. The Authorities have rejected the application of the writ petitioner on the ground that second application for compassionate appointment is not entertainable as per the clarifications issued by the Government in its Letter dated 03.10.2013.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the mother of the writ petitioner submitted an application, within a period of three years and the Authorities have not considered the same immediately. However, on attaining the age of majority, the mother of the writ petitioner submitted another application to provide appointment for her son. The said
3/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
application was also not considered and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents states that the application submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner is not entertainable, since it was submitted after a lapse of about 9 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The application submitted by the mother was not pursued initially. The mother of the writ petitioner herself submitted second application to provide appointment on compassionate ground for her son and in such circumstances, the Authorities have not considered the case of the writ petitioner.
7 . Scheme of compassionate appointment has to be implemented
strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Compassionate Appointment Scheme, being a concession, cannot be extended after a lapse of many years. The very purpose and object of the Scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising claimed as an absolute right. Scheme being an exception, cannot be expanded for the purpose of providing
4/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
appointment on compassionate grounds in a larger manner. Large scale compassionate appointment would result in infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the eligible citizen, who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process.
be implemented in a restricted manner, so as to provide appointment only to the families, who all are genuinely in penurious circumstances and in this regard, the authorities competent are bound to conduct field inspections and ascertain the imminent circumstances, warranting an appointment on compassionate grounds. It is not as if one appointment is to be granted to the family of the deceased employee and it is not as if every legal heir can submit the application and thereafter, the appointment is to be considered.
deceased employee and the said legal heir became ineligible, it is not as if that other legal legal heir can submit an application irrespective of the length of time. In the event of entertaining such repeated applications for
5/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
compassionate appointment, the very purpose and object of the scheme would be defeated.
6/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
assessment has been made and therefore, the large scale appointments causing inefficiency in public administration, which would result in violations
of the Constitution provisions, since the Constitution mandates an efficient public administration.
in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Amrita Sinha in
C.A.No.7640 –7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 [ (2021) 15 Scale 174 ] held in Paragraph No.10 as follows :
“The monthly pension which was payable to the respondent was required to be taken into account in the award of merit points. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that
7/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
pension is paid for past service rendered by the employee and, hence, denial of compassionate appointment on that basis was not justifiable. This reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious. Undoubtedly, pension is not an act of bounty, but is towards the service which has been rendered by an employee. However, in evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon the death while in service. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is provided in order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service. If the scheme requires that the family pension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application, it has to be followed.”
on 05.09.2022 , in the case of A hmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739] , wherein in paragraph-8 of its judgment, reiterated the principles to be
8/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
adopted for providing appointment on compassionate grounds as under:-
“8. E ven otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or
9/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified.”
15. Even in yet another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of C ENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. NITIN [ 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 690 ] , wherein in paragraphs 20 and 21, it has been held as
under:-
“20. I t is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or
10/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.
21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress.”
of Maharashtra and another vs. Ms.Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since
after marriage Smt.Madhuri Santhosh Koli) [ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820] , laid down the principles as follows:
11/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
“5. 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 the case of Director
of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704 , 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 summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-
(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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
12/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
6. As per the law laid down by this Court in 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.
Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 .......
As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. ................In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
13/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
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. ...............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. ........
26 . ... .... ... ... .... .... .....
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] 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.....
7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such
14/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
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 such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
7.1. ... .... ... ... .... .... .....
Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.”
& Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. [ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819] , the Apex Court held as follows:
The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide
15/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
9.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.”
18. In view of the fact that the employee died in the year 2007
and now almost 15 years lapsed and at this length of time, the claim of
16/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended in favour of the writ petitioner. More-so, the second application for appointment on compassionate ground is not entertainable. Thus the second application, which was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner in the year 2016, was rightly not entertainable.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
01-12-2022
Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Svn
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
To
17/18
WP No.21963 of 2019
1.Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
2.General Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002.
WP 21963 of 2019
01-12-2022
18/18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether competent authorities can entertain a second application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner after attaining majority.
Whether compassionate appointment can be granted after a prolonged lapse of time from the death of the deceased employee.
Whether a second application for compassionate appointment filed years after the initial rejection is maintainable under existing government schemas.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and others Vs. Amrita SinhaReferred¶60
Union of India and others Vs. Amrita Sinha, C.A.No.7640 –7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 [(2021) 15 Scale 174]
Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar UnionExplained¶67
Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. NITINExplained¶78
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. NITIN [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690]
The State of Maharashtra and another vs. Ms.Madhuri Maruti VidhateExplained¶87
The State of Maharashtra and another vs. Ms.Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Smt.Madhuri Santhosh Koli) [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820]
Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. SomyashreeReferred¶93
Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704 · Who else cites this
N.C. Santhosh vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶93
N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 · Who else cites this
Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LICReferred¶105
Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 · Who else cites this
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶112
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] · Who else cites this
Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.Applied¶120
Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Janakiraman
Managing Director, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
General Manager, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
