Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. MURUGAN — Appellant
Vs.
COMMISSIONER — Respondent
W.P. No. 7123 of 2018
Decided on : 30-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.R. Nixon, Adv., A.S. Thambuswamy, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 142 – Death - Compassionate Appointment - Order of rejection passed by respondent in proceedings in respect of claim of writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition - Father of writ petitioner was employed as Sweeper in respondents department and passed away while he was in service - At time of death of deceased employee writ petitioner was a minor and was unfit for compassionate appointment to submit an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds - On attaining age of majority writ petitioner submitted an application to respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds - Said application was rejected by respondent in proceedings stating that application submitted was beyond from date of death of deceased employee/father of writ petitioner cannot be entertained - Thus writ petitioner is constrained to move present writ petition - Held, Therefore he cannot make any application for appointment to any post in service and no post can be kept vacant for him till he attains majority - Posts which fall vacant have to be filled up as per recruitment rules - Employment assistance on compassionate appointment is only a concession extended to an eligible member of family to apply for a suitable post in service in which employee/Government servant died in harness and it is not a right which can be exercised by a minor on attainment of majority - Thus for reasons stated supra we are of view that continuation of penury or indigent circumstances of family alone is not factor to be considered by department while examining request of an applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds - Reading of Government orders shows that scheme can be extended only to eligible member of family and not to an ineligible person - Scheme has not been framed to provide employment assistance as and when son or daughter of deceased employee attains majority - Under scheme department is not obligated to keep any post vacant till applicant attains majority or to consider his candidature on attaining majority - Scheme only enables those who are eligible and satisfy all eligibility criteria including age within three years from date of death - Writ petition stands dismissed.
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
The order of rejection passed by the respondent in proceedings dated 30.1.2018 in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The father of the writ petitioner was employed as Sweeper in the respondent's Department and passed away on 17.5.2009, while he was in service. At the time of death of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner was a minor and was unfit for compassionate appointment to submit an application, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. On attaining the age of majority, the writ petitioner submitted an application to the respondent on 5.10.2017, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. The said application was rejected by the respondent in proceedings dated 30.1.2018, stating that the application submitted was beyond the period of 3 years from the date of death of the deceased employee/father of the writ petitioner, cannot be entertained. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. This Court is of an opinion that the Scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and a Special Scheme. Thus, the same is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Admittedly, the deceased employee passed away on 17.5.2009 and the very application of the writ petitioner dated 5.10.2017, seeking compassionate appointment i.e., after a lapse of 8 years from the date of death of the deceased employee/father of the writ petitioner. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the respondent.
5. The very purpose and object of seeking appointment on compassionate grounds are to mitigate the indigent circumstances arousing on account of the sudden death of the Government employee. The lapse of time will provide the ground for drawing the factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of the employee became vanished.
6. This Court is of the opinion that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is to be construed as violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and therefore does not create a vested right in favour of the claimant. A compassionate appointment scheme is a non-statutory scheme and is in the form of a concession and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the claimant to be enforced through a writ proceeding. A compassionate appointment is justified when it is granted to provide immediate succor to the deceased employee. Mere death of a Government employee in his harness, it does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee.
7. The concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.
8. The philosophy behind giving compassionate appointment is just to help the family in harness to get over the immediate crisis due to the loss of sole breadwinner. This category of appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after certain period, when the crisis is over. More so, the financial status of the family is also to be looked into as per the scheme framed by the employer while giving compassionate appointment and such appointment cannot be conferred contrary to the pa
