Madras High CourtV.Deepika vs The District Collector on 7 February, 2022Author:S.M.SubramaniamBench:S.M.SubramaniamW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019\n\n\n                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n                                                  DATED: 07.02.2022\n\n                                                       CORAM:\n\n                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM\n\n                                              W.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019\n\n\n                 V.Deepika                                                        ... Petitioner\n                                                          vs.\n                 The District Collector\n                 Ramanathapuram District\n                 Ramanathapuram                                                   ... Respondent\n\n\n                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India for\n\n                 issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the\n\n                 respondent i.e., the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, passed in his\n\n                 g.K(m3)/57515/2017,      dated 15.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently\n\n                 direct the respondent to provide compassionate ground appointment to the\n\n                 petitioner considering the qualifications acquired on the date of attaining\n\n                 majority within a specified time frame fixed by this Court.\n\n\n\n                           For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Visvalingam\n\n                           For Respondent     : Mr.M.Ramesh\n                                                Government Advocate\n\n                 _______________\n                 Page 1 of 10\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis\n                                                                  W.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019\n\n\n                                                      ORDERThe impugned order dated 15.07.2019, passed by the respondent,\n\n                 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate\n\n                 appointment reveals that the father of the petitioner died on on 29.10.2014\n\n                 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on\n\n                 15.05.2015. During the relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor and\n\n                 attained the age of majority only on 04.12.2017 after expiry of the period of\n\n                 three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.2. As per the scheme for compassionate appointment, the\n\n                 application for compassionate appointment must be submitted within a period\n\n                 of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the\n\n                 applicant should have attained the age of 18 years. In the present case, the\n\n                 application was submitted by the petitioner when she was minor and she\n\n                 attained the age of majority after the expiry of the period of three years from\n\n                 the date of death of the deceased employee. Therefore, this Court is of the\n\n                 view that the reasons assigned in the impugned order are in consonance with\n\n                 the scheme for the compassionate appointment._______________Page 2 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 20193. The scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced to\n\n                 mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the\n\n                 Government Employee.           Compassionate appointment is not a regular\n\n                 appointment, nor an appointment under the constitutional scheme.              It is a\n\n                 concession granted to the Government employees on certain exceptional\n\n                 circumstances. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed\n\n                 as a matter of right and only if a person is entitled under the terms and\n\n                 conditions, then alone the scheme can be extended, but not otherwise. Equal\n\n                 opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate.                     All\n\n                 appointments are to be made in accordance with the rules and by providing\n\n                 equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.4. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no\n\n                 selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility are tested, but persons are\n\n                 appointed merely based on death of an employee. Therefore, compassionate\n\n                 appointment is to be restricted in the interest of the efficient public\n\n                 administration.        No   doubt,   the   Government   has   also   restricted   the\n\n                 compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving\n\n                 family and more so, after a lapse of many years.         Providing compassionate\n\n                 appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose\n\n                 _______________Page 3 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on\n\n                 account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the lapse of time is also\n\n                 a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment. Number of\n\n                 judgments are delivered by this Court and the Government has also issued\n\n                 revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms) No.\n\n                 18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.5. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case ofState of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata, reported in (2022) 1 SCC\n\n                 30, has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of\n\n                 compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are\n\n                 extracted hereunder:“8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal,\n                           the lawlaid down bythis Court on compassionate ground on the\n                           death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and\n                           considered.In the recent decision, this Court inState of\n                           Karnataka vs. V.Somayashree[(2021) 12 SCC 20], had\n                           occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment\n                           on compassionate ground.After referring to the decision of this\n                           Court inN.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka[(2020) 7 SCC\n                           617], this Court has summarized the principle governing the grant of\n                           appointment on compassionate ground as under:_______________Page 4 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 201910.1. That the compassionate appointment is an\n                                  exception to the general rule;10.2.    That      no   aspirant    has    a    right   to\n                                  compassionate appointment;10.3. The appointment to any public post in the\n                                  service of the State has to be made on the basis of the\n                                  principle in accordance withArticles 14and16of the\n                                  Constitution of India;10.4. Appointment on compassionate ground can\n                                  be made only on fulfilling the normslaid down bythe\n                                  State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria\n                                  as per the policy;10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of the\n                                  consideration of the application should be the basis for\n                                  consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.9. As per the lawlaid down bythis Court in a catena of\n                           decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the\n                           government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all\n                           aspirants as mandated underArticles 14and16of the Constitution.However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a\n                           dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said\n                           norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.9.1.In the case ofH.P. v. Shashi Kumar[(2019) 3 SCC\n                           653], this Court in paras 21 and 26 had an occasion to consider the\n                           object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and\n\n\n                 _______________Page 5 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019considered decision of this Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC\n                           [(2005) 10 SCC 289], it is observed and held as under:“21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma,\n                                  has been considered subsequently in several decisions.\n                                  But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary\n                                  to note that the nature of compassionate appointment\n                                  had been considered by this Court inUmesh Kumar\n                                  Nagpal v. State of Haryana[(1994) 4 SCC 138]. The\n                                  principles which have beenlaid down inUmesh Kumar\n                                  Nagpal have been subsequently followed in a consistent\n                                  line of precedents in this Court.   These principles are\n                                  encapsulated in the following extract:“2. … As a rule, appointments in the public\n                                  services should be made strictly on the basis of open\n                                  invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of\n                                  appointment nor any other consideration is permissible.\n                                  Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are\n                                  at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the\n                                  qualificationslaid down bythe rules for the post.\n                                  However, to this general rule which is to be followed\n                                  strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved\n                                  out in the interests of justice and to meet certain\n                                  contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the\n                                  dependants of an employee dying in harness and\n                                  leaving his family in penury and without any means of\n                                  livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian\n\n\n                 _______________Page 6 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019consideration taking into consideration the fact that\n                                  unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family\n                                  would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision\n                                  is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to\n                                  one of the dependants of the deceased who may be\n                                  eligible for such employment. The whole object of\n                                  granting compassionate employment is thus to enable\n                                  the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is\n                                  not to give a member of such family a post much less a\n                                  post for post held by the deceased. What is further,\n                                  mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle\n                                  his family to such source of livelihood. The Government\n                                  or the public authority concerned has to examine the\n                                  financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it\n                                  is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of\n                                  employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis\n                                  that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the\n                                  family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest\n                                  posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence\n                                  they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds,\n                                  the object being to relieve the family, of the financial\n                                  destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The\n                                  provision of employment in such lowest posts by making\n                                  an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is\n                                  not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to\n                                  such dependant of the deceased employee in such\n                                  posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be\n\n                 _______________Page 7 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts\n                                  are expected or required to be given by the public\n                                  authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in\n                                  this connection that as against the destitute family of\n                                  the deceased there are millions of other families which\n                                  are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the\n                                  rule made in favour of the family of the deceased\n                                  employee is in consideration of the services rendered by\n                                  him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in\n                                  the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the\n                                  erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”\n\n                                         “26.The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in\n                                  Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [Mumtaz\n                                  Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC\n                                  384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the\n                                  principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is\n                                  not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the\n                                  family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial\n                                  crisis. The financial position of the family would need to\n                                  be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in\n                                  the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma\n                                  [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 :2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the\n                                  Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier\n                                  binding precedents of this Court have been taken note\n                                  of in that case.”\n\n\n                 _______________Page 8 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 20196. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for the\n\n                 relief as such sought for in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to\n\n                 be dismissed.7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.07.02.2022\n                 Index : Yes / No\n                 Internet : Yes / No\n\n                 krk\n\n                 To:The District Collector\n                 Ramanathapuram District\n                 Ramanathapuram\n\n\n\n\n                 _______________Page 9 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 2019S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.krkW.P.(MD) No.18502 of 201907.02.2022\n\n\n\n\n                 _______________Page 10 of 10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis