The Writ Appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld that compassionate appointment is a benefit, not a right, and rejected the claim by a granddaughter of a deceased employee, noting the family has employed sons and the scheme does not cover grandchildren.
Writ Appeal dismissed with no order as to 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 985 of 2014 % 04.06.2014 Between: # Smt.V.Sarada. ... APPELLANT Versus $ The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. ...RESPONDENT < Gist: > Head Note: ! COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :- Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :-Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao ? Cases Referred:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 985 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The compassion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court about two decades ago in the process of rescuing the family of a deceased employee has grown in proportion, beyond anybody’s expectation. It would not be an exaggeration to mention that it has assumed dangerous and bewildering dimensions. Every possible distortion was given and it has reached a stage where the element of compassion has totally disappeared and the facility is being claimed much more than a right of succession. It has also become handy for the unions in various organisations. For many years, the only method of appointment in several important Government and semiGovernment organisations came to be restricted to the one of appointment on compassionate grounds.
Instances are not lacking where the children of the employees eagerly awaited the death of their parents, who were
employed in the organisation. In many cases, fake certificates are submitted. Schemes were extended beyond imaginable limits wherever it suited the concerned. The case on hand provides an example.
One Smt.V.Munemma was employed in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, the respondent herein, as an Attender. She died on 21.08.2007. By that time, her three sons were working as employees in the Devasthanam itself. The appellant herein is the daughter of Munemma. She was married way back in the year 1963 and was blessed with a son, named as V.Munendra Babu.
After the death of Munemma, the appellant filed a representation, dated 28.04.2008, with a request to appoint V.Munendra Babu, on compassionate grounds in view of the death of her mother, Munemma. Alleging that her representation was not being considered, she filed W.P.No.11734 of 2008. As usual, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case. On such consideration, the Devasthanam passed an order, dated 19.07.2008, rejecting the case of the appellant. It was mentioned that the plea of the appellant that she has been divorced is not established and that the scheme does not permit of appointing the grand children of the deceased employees. Challenging the said communication, the appellant filed W.P.No.21149 of 2008. The same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 26.11.2012. Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
It is indeed startling to note that it has occurred to the appellant to claim the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds for her son, on account of the death of her mother. The blame squarely rests for this on the Courts as well as the compassionate employers, in certain organisations.
Neither the Constitution of India nor any statute passed by the concerned Legislatures provide for appointment of the children of the employees, who died while in service, on compassionate grounds. The known method of appointment to any post, that too in public organisations is to invite applications from the eligible candidates and to select the candidates in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The facility of reservation is provided to help the weaker-sections in the society. Beyond that, the concept of relaxation of the prescribed procedure is not at all incorporated in any enactment, or for that matter, the Service Rules.
In a stray case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exhibited its compassion to the family of a deceased employee and directed the employer to provide employment to one of his children, so that the family is not pushed to penury on account of the untimely death of the employee. To our recollection, no specific direction was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, requiring the Government and its agencies to frame schemes, providing for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, since such a facility was proving to be beneficial to the employees, pressure came to be exerted by the respective unions to frame such schemes. In certain cases, the managements were a bit
happy with the schemes, since persons of their choice can be accommodated otherwise than through the process of selection.
As of now, the concept of appointment on compassionate grounds became so widespread that in every public organisation, a parallel method of appointment on compassionate grounds exists, even while the Service Rules framed under the relevant statues remain silent about them. It is not an exaggeration to point out that the appointment through the regular prescribed procedure virtually came to a stand still on account of austerity measures imposed by the Government, whereas appointment through compassionate grounds has increased almost like a wild growth.
Wherever the schemes exist, the purport thereof is that in case an employee dies while in service and there is no earning member in the family or that the family is otherwise pushed to financial difficulties, one of the dependants of the deceased employee can be appointed on compassionate grounds, in the available vacancies, subject to fulfilment of qualifications. In certain cases, this Court has taken the view that if the family of the deceased is otherwise financially sound or the benefits that are extended to it on account of the death of the employee are so considerable, that the family can take care of itself for the next few years, the facility of compassionate appointment need not be extended. The existence of an employed person in the family, apart from the deceased employee is another factor, which would disentitle the dependants of the deceased employee, to claim such benefit.
Attempts were made to expand the scope of the
definition of ‘dependant’. Initially, it was to include only the eligible unmarried major children of the employee or in a given case, his or her spouse. This was later on expanded to include the minor children also and almost a gestation period, till they attain the age of the majority was also provided for. As regards the daughters of the deceased employee, it was restricted only to unmarried ones.
The temptation to grab public resources is such that every canon of law is pressed into service to grab the maximum, as in the present case. The married daughters made efforts to get the benefit by pleading that they have been divorced. Such divorces were brought about for the exclusive purpose of availing the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds in many cases.
The appellant, in the instant case, has crossed all the levels of propriety and liberal approaches. The claim made by her is not for herself, but it is for her son. The Hon’ble Supreme Court would not have imagined even remotely that the scheme would assume such bewildering proportions. It is just un-understandable as to how the son of the appellant herein can be treated as dependant of her mother, late Munemma. The very fact that the three sons of Munemma are employed would be sufficient to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment for anyone claiming through her. Even if there existed a fourth son and he was un-employed, he would not have been extended the benefit, because his three brothers were already employed in the same organisation.
Over the period, the scheme is being treated as
conferring rights of succession, that too with an elastic definition of successors. With each passing year, the category of successors is increasing and parameters of succession are changing. The result of the indiscriminate appointment is not difficult to imagine. Not only the merit would suffer, but also the dejection on the part of the huge un-employed youth increases, may be in some cases to the level of revolt. A time has come for revisiting the entire concept, which has made serious inroads into concept of public employment and eroded the efficiency up to dangerous levels.
We accordingly dismiss the writ appeal as being devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J ________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
Dt:04.06.2014 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a married daughter's daughter (granddaughter) is a valid dependent eligible for compassionate appointment upon the death of her employee mother.
Whether the existence of the deceased employee's own employed sons disentitles the son of a divorced daughter from claiming compassionate appointment.
Smt. V. Sarada
The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
