Back
2011 (3) Supreme 26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Local Administration Department & Anr. — Appellants
versus
M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2006
Decided on : 5-4-2011
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against judgment passed by High Court wherein it directed the appellants to provide appointment to respondent under scheme of “compassionate appointments” for the death of his father while he was in service.
Findings of the Court :
The Court Held that basic flaw in the view taken by Division Bench was that it was completely divorced from the object and purpose of scheme of compassionate appointments. Under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents 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 bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of employee or without due consideration of financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time . Instantly respondent was only 11 years old at the time of death of his father. The first application for his appointment was made even while he was a minor. Another application was made on his behalf on attaining majority after 7 years and 6 months of his father’s death. In such a case, appointment could not be said to sub-serve the basic object and purpose of scheme. In the facts of case, municipal authorities were clearly right in holding that with whatever difficulty, family of deceased had been able to tide over the first impact of his death. That being the position, case of respondent did not come under the scheme of compassionate appointments. Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam, J. —
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. By the judgment and order coming under appeal, the High Court directed the appellants to provide appointment to the respondent under the scheme of “compassionate appointments” for the death of his father while he was in service. The High Court further asked the appellants to comply with the direction within three months from the date of the order.
2. The respondent’s father Meenakshisundaram worked as a Watchman in Karaikal Municipality. He died on November 22, 1988, after putting in 4 years 3 months and 25 days of service. He left behind a widowed wife and two sons, including the respondent who was 11 years old at that time. The wife of the deceased, whose age at the time of the death of her husband was 39 years, did not make any request for her appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. After about five and a half years of his father’s death, the respondent passed the S.S.L.C. examination in April, 1993. And then, for the first time on July, 29, 1993, the respondent’s mother made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. No action was possible on this application since the respondent was still a minor. Later on, another application was made for his appointment on compassionate grounds after 7 years and 6 months of the death of his father. Failing to get a favourable response to his application, he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking appropriate directions to the concerned authorities. That Writ Petition was disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court with a direction to the authorities to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh and pass an order on his application within four months from the date of receipt of that order. This order (first in the series) passed by the High Court was followed by a contempt proceeding initiated against the authorities at the instance of the respondent but that is not relevant for the present and we need not go into that any further. Suffice to note that eventually, the Municipality rejected the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment vide order dated 19.4.2000. He once again went to the High Court. A single Judge of the High Court, this time, rejected the Writ Petition. Against the order passed by the single Judge, he filed an intra-court appeal which was allowed by judgment and order dated April 30, 2004, and the Municipality was given the direction to appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order.
4. The appellants have now brought this matter to this Court.
5. In the order dated April 19, 2000, two reasons were assigned for rejecting the respondent’s claim for appointment on compassionate basis. First, on the death of Meenakshisundaram, his wife, the mother of the respondent did not make any request for appointment and this showed that the demise of the concerned employee had not caused a very serious financial crisis in the family. In this connection it was also stated that in case on the death of Meenakshisundaram, his wife had made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, her application might have been considered giving her relaxation of age and academic qualification.
The second reason given for rejecting the respondent’s claim was that following the death of Meenakshisundaram, the family was given Rs.26,674/- as terminal benefits besides family pension to the widow. Thus, the dependents of the deceased employee were not left completely without any financial resources.
6. The second reason given for not accepting the respondent’s claim was rejected outright by the Division Bench relying upon a decision of this Court in Balbir Kaur and another Versus Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1596. And on this score, the decision of the High Court cannot be faulted. But the Division Bench also disapproved the first reason a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
