High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
Union of India rep. by the Director (Staff) Ministry of Communications Department of Posts & Others
Versus
K. Arunachalam & Another
W.P.No.15597 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on: 23-07-2008
Compassionate Appointment - Public Service - Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SOMVIR SINGH (2007(3) SCALE 42), UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS. vs. M.T. LATHEESH (2006(7) SCC 350), STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. v. PARAS NATH (1998(2) SCC 412), APSRTC MUSHEERABAD v. SARVAUNNISSA BEGUM (2008(3) SCALE 143) - The court considered the claim for compassionate appointment and held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of appointment to public service by permitting all the eligible candidates to participate in the process of selection. The idea behind such appointment is to help the family of the deceased or those employees, who have retired on medical grounds to tide over the immediate difficulties, on account of the untimely death of the family head or the retirement of breadwinner on medical grounds. Such appointment cannot be postponed to a later date till the dependent attains majority unless the scheme permits such course. Similarly, the dependents cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be provided with a particular post in the service de hors the scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father's retirement. The application was rejected due to the long delay in submission and lack of vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent's application for compassionate appointment was rejected due to the long delay and lack of vacancies. The court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of appointment to public service and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first respondent was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of appointment to public service and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition, stating that the order shall not stand in the way of the first respondent's continuation in the GDS post if permitted by the petitioners.
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 211. 2007 in O.A.No.673 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in GDS post.
2. The factual details as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:-
.(a) The first respondent preferred an Original Application No.673 of 2006 before the Tribunal challenging the orders dated 6. 2006, 22. 2006 and 210. 2005 and to direct the petitioners herein to reinstate him as GDS in any of the vacant post with all consequential reliefs.
.(b) In the original application filed before the Tribunal, it was the case of the first respondent as applicant that his father A. Karuppusamy was employed as Group D in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirunelveli and he retired on medical grounds on 38. 1991. He had five daughters and one son. The applicant being the only son he made an application to the appropriate authority in the year 1991 with a request to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the adverse circumstances of the first respondent, he was engaged as an outsider at Sankar Nagar Sub Office. In the meanwhile his case for compassionate appointment was considered and thereby his name was approved by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle by granting relaxation of recruitment rules.
.(c) As per the direction of the Chief Postmaster General, by order dated 22. 1997 the applicant was engaged as an outsider at Sankar Nagar Sub Office. In the meantime the Ministry of Communications issued a circular dated 27. 2001 instructing the appropriate authority to call for willingness from the approved candidates to consider them for appointment to the post of GDS and immediately the first respondent made a representation to consider his case for such appointment. The case of the first respondent was considered by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirunelveli and he was appointed as GDS Mail Deliverer/mail carrier, Krishnagiri Branch Office as per order dated 24. 2006n ad the same was given effect from 111. 2002 and as such he had worked till 15. 2004 and thereafter he was appointed as GDSMC at Thatchanallur Head Office against a clear vacancy with effect from 22. 2004.
.(d) Subsequently the first respondent filed an application to appoint him on regular basis. But due to his shock and surprise, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices as per communication dated 210. 2005 informed the first respondent that his case has been considered and rejected by the postal department as per order dated 29. 2005, which was communicated to him by the Post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai on 210. 2005. Though the first respondent preferred a petition to the Ministry of Communications, his case was rejected on the ground that his father had retired on 38. 1991 itself and as such there was no scope for considering him for appointment on account of long delay. In such circumstances, he was constrained to file the original application before the Tribunal.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, before the Tribunal it was contended that after the retirement of the petitioners father, the application was submitted on 38. 1991 for appointment of the first respondent on compassionate ground and the said application submitted by the father of the first respondent was considered and rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee during the year 1993 and the same was communicated to him on 1. 1994. Again during the visit of the Chief Post Master General at Tirunelveli on 23. 1996, the first respondents father met him and represented his case and as directed by the Chief Post Master General, the details of the first respondent was collected for the purpose of reconsideration. The said proposal for compassionate appointment was received on 28. 1996 and the Circle Re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.