Petitioner sought compassionate appointment after his mother's death in service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the delay and existence of temporary employment failed to meet the scheme's objective of relieving sudden financial destitution.
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
Reserved on : 25.02.2022 Pronounced on : 03.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
A.Nirmal Kumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
Social Welfare Department, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order of the First Respondent dated 18.06.2021 made in Na. Ka. No. 3575/niru.4(3)/2021 and to quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the Petitioner for the death of his mother Prema wife of Ariyanayagam who died on 19.12.2016 in a suitable post.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr. R.Siddharth, Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard Mr. C.Prabakaran, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.Siddharth, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
“2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. 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 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 non-manual 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.”
Recapitulating that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jammu and Kashmir -vs- Sajad Ahmed Mir [(2006) 5 SCC 766], has held as follows:-
"11. ....Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where
compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say “goodbye” to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Local Administration Department -vs- M. Selvanayagam [(2011) 13 SCC 42], has held as follows:-
"11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependants is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependants and the financial deprivation caused to the dependants as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependants of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father's death. In such a case, the appointment cannot be said to subserve the basic object and purpose of the scheme. It would rather appear that on attaining majority he staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Municipality and he had died while in service.
In another decision in Government of India -vs- P.Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the legal position as follows:-
" ....Compassionate appointment, it is wellsettled, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need...."
impugned order passed by the First Respondent requiring interference by this Court in the exercise of discretionary powers of judicial review of the decision-making process under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vjt
To
Chennai – 600 015.
+1cc to the Government pleader Sr.13021
+1cc to Mr. C.Prabakaran, Advocate Sr.14685 [14/03/2022]
W.P. No. 3827 of 2022
cp[co] srg 04/03/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a temporary job contracts a public servant’s eligibility for compassionate appointment?
Whether delayed application defeats the objective of immediate succession for a financial crisis caused by the death of an employee?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nirmal Kumar
The Director, Social Welfare Department
The Child Development Project Officer (Rural)
P. D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
