Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
V. Sampath
Versus
The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District & Another
Writ Petition No.10490 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on : 19-12-2011
Compassionate appointment scheme is an exception to the general rule of recruitment on the basis of merit and open invitation. It is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. The claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, a Class-IV employee in the Panchayat Union Office, died in harness on 2.10.1995, leaving behind his wife, two sons (including the petitioner), and a daughter. The petitioner applied for a Legal Heirship certificate, but the VAO projected that the deceased was married to one Laxmi and she was the widow. The petitioner's mother filed a writ petition in this Court, which directed the respondents to consider the representation. The Tahsildar passed an order directing the petitioner to get a Succession Certificate from the Civil Court. The petitioner and other heirs filed a civil suit for a declaration that they are the heirs of the deceased and for consequential direction that they are entitled to terminal benefits. The suit was decreed in their favor on 4.4.2005. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 14.2.2007, but it was rejected on the ground that the application was made after three years from the date of the deceased's death, as per the guidelines issued by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is unsustainable. The delay in applying for compassionate appointment was duly explained by the petitioner. The petitioner had diligently pursued the matter by approaching the Civil Court for getting declared his status and the Revenue authorities for necessary Certificates. The Government policy of granting compassionate appointment had not been duly followed. The respondents failed to frame appropriate Rule in protecting the interest of the claimant for compassionate appointment, in unambiguous terms. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, taking into consideration the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed by the Government guidelines? 2. Whether the delay in applying for compassionate appointment can be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The compassionate appointment scheme is an exception to the general rule of recruitment on the basis of merit and open invitation. It is intended to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee that, on his death, may suddenly find itself in a state of destitution. 2. The claim for compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. 3. The delay in applying for compassionate appointment can be condoned if it is duly explained and if the petitioner has diligently pursued the matter.
Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, taking into consideration the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
1. The son of the deceased Government employee challenges the order of rejection of compassionate appointment in the proceedings of the first respondent/District Collector in Na.Ka.No.2613/2007/PA/AA1, dated 2.1.2008, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The petitioners father Vadivel was employed as a Class IV employee in Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union Office, and he died in harness on 2.10.1995, leaving behind his wife--Smt.Boopathy, two sons--Saravanan and Sampath (writ petitioner) and one daughter--Vasanthi. His father was the sole bread winner of the family and they have no other source of income. On the sudden demise of the petitioners father, the family was forced to stand on the streets.
(b) After the death of the petitioners father, the petitioner applied for a Legal Heirship certificate, but the Village Administrative Officer (for short, the VAO) of Mettu Kosalai Village, without issuing the heirship certificate of his deceased father Vadivel, tried to project as if the said Vadivel was married to one Laxmi and as such, the said Laxmi was the widow of the said deceased Vadivel and fabricated documents to show as the heirs of the deceased Vadivel.
(c) While that being the position, the petitioners mother filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.1188 of 1996 for a direction to the respondents to issue the Legal Heirship Certificate and this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner therein and pass orders. However, the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, passed the order on 22.5.1996, directing the petitioner to get the orders from the Civil Court by obtaining a succession certificate.
(d) Therefore, the petitioner and the other heirs of the deceased Vadivel filed a civil suit in O.S.No.5555 of 1999 before the 18th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased Vadivel and also for a consequential direction that the plaintiffs (legal heirs of the deceased Vadivel) are entitled to get the terminal benefits arising out of the death of Vadivel. Pending the suit suit, the alleged wife of the deceased Vadivel, namely Lakshmi, the Village Administrative Officer, Mettukosalai Village, Tiruvannamalai, Secretary of the Local Administration Department, Chennai, Paramasivam and the Executive Officer of Thiruvannamalai Panchayat Union, were impleaded as parties to the said suit. All the parties have filed their pleadings and contested the case for trial and let in oral and documentary evidence. After the contested trial, the learned 18th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, granted a decree as prayed for on 4.4.2005 and declared the plaintiffs (one of the sons, Sampath-writ petitioner herein, Boopathy-wife of the deceased Vadivel, Saravanan-another son of the deceased Vadivel and Vasanthi-the daughter of the deceased Vadivel) as the heirs of the deceased Vadivel and also held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the terminal benefits on the death of Vadivel.
(e) Only thereafter, the petitioner was able to approach the appropriate authorities to get the certificates, which are indispensably required for making application on compassionate grounds. As the petitioners father Vadivel (deceased) was a Class IV employee in the second respondent-Panchayat Union, on a regular appointment and had died in harness on 2.10.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds.
(f) Due to the sudden demise of the petitioners father, the entire family was stranded on the streets in the midst of lengthy litigation, and only after the decree of the Civil Court in the said suit, the petitioner was able to obtain the following certificates:
(i) Conduct Certificate;
(ii) Death Certificate of the deceased Vadivel (petitioners father);
(iii) Tahsildar Certificate
AI
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
