Compassionate appointment is not a right and can only be granted under exceptional circumstances, as per the legal provisions and principles discussed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order, dated 19.01.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.2176 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the request of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected.

2. According to the appellant, his father Kodhandapani was working as Village Administrative Officer in D.Punaasal Village. Initially, Kodhandapani married one Paranjothi and out of the said wedlock, a male child Balasankar was born to them. Balasankar is a mentally retarded person. Subsequently, Paranjothi died and after her death, Kodhandapani married one Saradhavalli in the year 1993 and out of the said wedlock, a female child Balajothi and a male child Manikanda Prabu (appellant herein) were born to them. Subsequently, Kodhandapani died in harness on 05.05.2008, while he was in service. At the time of death of Kodhandapani, the appellant was a minor and therefore, his mother Saradhavalli made an application dated 02.05.2011 to the first respondent seeking appointment to her son Manikanda Prabu, on compassionate grounds. However, the said application was rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4.24040/2011, dated 30.07.2015. Challenging the same, Manikanda Prabu filed W.P.(MD) No.2176 of 2017. The Writ Court, after hearing both sides, by order dated 19.01.2021 dismissed the writ petition, on the grounds that the appellant for whom his mother sought for appointment on compassionate grounds was minor and the application was not made immediately after the date of her husband. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, even though attacked the order passed by the Writ Court on several grounds, strenuously contended that the respondents have rejected the application for compassionate appointment with a delay of four years and though at the time of making application the appellant was minor, at the time of passing of the order rejecting the application, he became major and therefore, he may be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the appellant was a minor at the time of death of his father. Normally, application for compassionate appointment would be considered, provided the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the learned Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Advocate for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. The scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced only to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the Government employee. Appointment under compassionate grounds is neither regular appointment, nor under the constitutional scheme. It is nothing but a concession granted to the Government employees on certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions of the scheme, then alone the scheme can be extended, but not otherwise.

7. The Government has also restricted the compassionate appointments. Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, non-eligibility for compassionate appointment is also a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment. The Government has also issued revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.

8. Identical issue came up before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1749 of 2019 (Sudhanthira Devi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) [in the