Back
1990 Supreme(Mad) 797
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MISHRA
Arputha Mary
Versus
The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation & Others
W.P. No.11904 of 1989
Decided On :Decided On : 14-09-1990
For the Petitioner:Mr. V. Sumathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. U.N.R. Rao, Senior Counsel, M/s. Thamizhmani, T. Fenn Walter, Advocates.
In compassionate appointment cases, the primary consideration is to appoint the person who would provide the needed bread to the family.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - SCHEME - PREFERENCE - WIDOW OR SON - INTERPRETATION OF SCHEME - COURT'S DIRECTION TO APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the widow of a deceased employee of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, applied for a compassionate appointment. Her stepson, who had attained majority, also applied for the same position. The petitioner alleged that her stepson would not provide for the family's needs and that her consent for his appointment was obtained under coercion.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to mitigate the hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner and that such appointments should be made immediately. The court also noted that the scheme for compassionate appointments gave preference to sons over widows and widows over daughters.
Issues: 1. Whether the stepson, who had attained majority, should be given preference over the widow for a compassionate appointment. 2. Whether the petitioner's consent for her stepson's appointment was obtained under coercion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the main consideration in compassionate appointment cases is who would provide the needed bread to the family. The court found that the stepson was likely to neglect the petitioner and her children and that he would not provide for the family's needs. The court also found that the petitioner's consent for her stepson's appointment was obtained under coercion.
Final Decision: The court directed the appointing authority to personally inquire into the matter and decide whether to appoint the petitioner or the stepson within two months. The court also directed that there would be no order as to costs.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
2. The petitioner herein is the widow of one M. Devaraj who died in harness on 4-12-1987 while working in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation as Operator Grade II. She has alleged that the deceased had taken her as bis wife, after his first wife has died. At the time of the death of her husband, there were children through his first wife, named Davidraj and Stellamari, and two children through her, named Sofia and Darbing Joseph. All the children were minor at the time of his death. The petitioner applied for appointment in a job on compassionate grounds as at the time of taking the application, none of their children was a major. It seems, however, that her step-son David-raj in the meanwhile attained majority. He too applied for appointment on the plea that his father had died in harness and under the scheme for giving appointment on compassionate grounds, he ranked first in the order of preference. Finding that her step-son who had attained majority and decided to ignore his fathers family, that is to say, the petitioner and the other minor children, if appointed, would not provide a breadwinner to the family, the petitioner made representations to various authorities and brought to their notice that the son, who had appropriated such deposits which the father had made for the benefit of the family, because he had the advantage of being nominated by him, would deny to the family the needed bread. When, however, she found that none of her representations was attended to, she came to this court.
3. Initially, only the Chairman and Director, Personnel of the respondents-Corporation were impleaded as party respondents. Davidraj, however, was felt to be a necessary party. Accordingly, this court ordered notice to him. Davidraj has since appeared.
4. Speaking on the principle why a compassionate ground appointment will be permissible notwithstanding the guarantee under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India to affored equality of opportunity of employment, the Supreme Court in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India 1 , has observed :
“While it may be permissible to appoint a per son who is the son of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while rendering service in the police department, a provision which confers a preferential right to appointment on the children or wards or other relatives of such police officers would be contrary to Art. 16 of the Constitution.”
Reiterating this law in a case in which a widow had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, the Supreme Court in Sushma Gosein v. Union of India 2 has observed :
“We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appintment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.”
5. Had this principle been kept in mind, the widow the petitioner, would have been given immediate appointment to redeem the family in distress, and had immediate appointment been given to her, the son, who was a minor then, on attaining majority later could not have come to raise any claim for himself. This, however, was not done. Now, besides the widow the petitioner, the son has also applied for appointment on compassionate grounds.
6. My attention has been drawn to a memorandum in which the scheme on how appointments on compassionate grounds should be given is indicated, and made applicable with effect from 8-10-1983. While it has not ruled out appointment to the widow or daughter, it has indicated that in the matter of such appointment on compassionate gr
