Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1403
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
Vinoth Kumar & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Agriculture Department & Others
W.P.Nos.49346 of 2006, 1226 and 4620 of 2007, (O.A.Nos.6535, 6377, 6222 of 2001) & W.P.Nos.17520 & 26802 of 2011
Decided on: 19-03-2012
For the Petitioners:Ilamvaludhi, K. Raja, M. Arunkumar, R. Muthukannan, N.G.R. Prasad, S.C. for M/s. Row & Reddy, B. Manoharan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R. Ravichandran, A.G.P.
Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. They are an exception to the general rule of recruitment on the basis of merit and open invitation. The object of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
Headnote:
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. It is an exception to the general rule of recruitment on the basis of merit and open invitation. The object is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, family members of deceased government employees, sought compassionate appointments on the grounds of financial hardship and indigency. The government rejected their applications, citing reasons such as ineligibility, belatedness, and the absence of a provision for compassionate appointments in certain categories.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. They are an exception to the general rule of recruitment on the basis of merit and open invitation. The object of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether compassionate appointments are a vested right? 2. What is the object of compassionate appointments? 3. Can compassionate appointments be claimed after a lapse of time?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to establish the following principles: * Compassionate appointments are not a vested right and cannot be claimed as a matter of course. * They are an exception to the general rule of recruitment on the basis of merit and open invitation. * The object of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. * Compassionate appointments cannot be claimed after a lapse of time, as the object is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to compassionate appointments. The court also held that the government's decision to reject the petitioners' applications was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Key Points: - Compassionate appointments are an exception to the general rule of recruitment on merit, aimed at providing immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis (!) (!) . - Appointments on compassionate grounds are restricted to the lowest categories (Class III and IV posts) and are not a vested right (!) (!) . - Compassionate appointments cannot be claimed or offered after a considerable lapse of time, as the object is to provide immediate relief and the crisis would have ended (!) (!) (!) .
What is the object of compassionate appointments?
What are the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointments?
Can compassionate appointments be claimed after a lapse of time?
Common Order
1. This judgment shall dispose of the following writ petitions, as the petitioners in all these writ petitions have prayed for compassionate appointment.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent No.3, dated 31.05.2011 rejecting the plea of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
3. The mother of the petitioner was employed as Junior Assistant in the office of Elementary Educational Officer, Mannargudi. The father of the petitioner predeceased his mother in the year 1990.
4. The petitioner passed Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in second class in 1990 and got his name registered with the Employment Exchange. The petitioner has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange till the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner is doing electrical repair works and got married in the year 2002.
5. The submission of the petitioner is that his mother was looked after his family. The mother of the petitioner died on heart attack on 13.06.2003 while in service.
6. The petitioner after death of his mother applied for appointment on compassionate ground in October 2003. The petitioner was informed that there was ban on recruitment and that his application would be considered only after the ban is lifted in April 2006. The Government lifted the ban on employment, the petitioner was informed that his application was not traceable and therefore, he was directed to send copy of the application filed through Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvarur. The direction was complied with. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that his application is under consideration. But on 13.12.2007, the petitioner was informed that his application was rejected on the ground that it was belated.
7. The petitioner filed W.P.No.297 of 2008 in this Court which was allowed holding that the application of the petitioner was filed well within the time and direction was issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. Vide order dated 15.04.2008, the petitioner was informed that his request for compassionate appointment was rejected under the orders of the respondent No.1, but the copy of the order was not supplied to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13652 of 2008 against the order dated 15.04.2008. The said writ petition was again allowed and the order dated 15.04.2008 was set aside and the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner against Group 'C' and 'D' posts and pass orders.
10. The respondents instead of complying with the order filed a review petition No.106 of 2008 which was dismissed by this Court on 24.01.2011. The petitioner again filed representation for appointment on compassionate ground, the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 was passed stating that the case of the petitioner can be considered on the basis of seniority of the person seeking employment on compassionate ground as per G.O.Ms.No.185 Labour & Employment dated 04.10.2006. The Government order reads as under:
Public Services - Scheme of Compassionate ground appointment fixing of seniority of the legal heirs of the deceased Government Servants - Orders issued.
Labourand Employment (02) Department
G.O.(Ms.) No.185 Dated : 04.10.2006
Read:
From the Deputy Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat, D.O. Lr.No.11314/2001-30 TNLA Secretariate (CAC) Dated 7.8.2001 and Assurance No.596/97.
ORDER
For the appointment under compassionate grounds, the question of fixing of seniority for adopting either the date of death of the Government Servant (or) the date of application produced by the legal heirs of the deceased Government servant has to be decided.
2) The Government after careful examination of the matter have decided that the date of death of the deceased Government servant be taken for fixing seniority for appointment under compassionate grounds and accordingly direct that the date of death of Governmen
