SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
D.Partheepan - Petitioner
Versus
State Represented by its Secretary, Home Department and ors. – Respondents
WP No.36822 of 2016
Decided On : 03-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Ambigapathi
For the Respondent:Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate.

Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and can only be granted under exceptional circumstances based on the prevailing norms at the time of consideration.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Compassionate Appointment - G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020 - State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30] - State of Karnataka vs. V.Somayashree [(2021) 12 SCC 20] - N.C.Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka [(2020) 7 SCC 617] - H.P. v. Shashi Kumar [(2019) 3 SCC 653] - Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC [(2005) 10 SCC 289] - Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] - Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of the father, a Constable, in 1995. The court considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and the relevant scheme of Compassionate Appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and can only be granted under exceptional circumstances. The court referred to various judgments and government instructions to support its decision.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment after a lapse of about 19 years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and can only be granted under the terms and conditions of the relevant policy. It is not a matter of right and must be based on the prevailing norms at the time of consideration.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the penurious circumstances, which are the basis for compassionate appointment, had vanished due to the efflux of time.

ORDER :

The Writ of Mandamus is filed to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 22.08.2016. The representation was submitted on 22.08.2016 by the petitioner to provide appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The father of the writ petitioner served as Constable and died on 03.06.1995. The mother of the writ petitioner filed an application, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The respondents have forwarded the application and in the process of considering the case of the mother of the writ petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. However, she had not pursued the matter. The sister of the writ petitioner is the B.E. Degree holder and got married and settled along with her husband. Since the mother had not pursued the application, after some period, another application was filed on 09.06.2014 to provide appointment, who is son of the deceased employee and the said application was not considered, since it was submitted after a lapse of about 19 years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the mother of the writ petitioner was called for to attend an interview. However, she had not fulfilled the requirements and therefore, her case was not considered. Thus, the fact remains that the wife of the deceased employee was not appointed and by that time several years lapsed and the petitioner submitted application after a lapse of about 19 years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

5. The Scheme of Compassionate Appointment was introduced to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the Government Employee. Compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment, nor an appointment under the constitutional scheme. It is 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, then alone the scheme can be extended, but not otherwise. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made in accordance with the rules and by providing equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.

6. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested, but persons are appointed merely based on death of an employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment is to be restricted in the interest of the efficient public administration. No doubt, the Government has also restricted the compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving family and more so, after a lapse of many years. 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, the lapse of time is also a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment. Number of judgments are delivered by this Court and 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.

7. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30], has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are extracted hereunder :

    “8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in State of Karnataka vs. V.Somayashree [(2021) 12 SCC 20], had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate gro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top