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) 1024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
P.Rajeshkumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Industries & Director of Industry & Commerce, Department of Industries and Commerce and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.40662 of 2016
Decided On : 04-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Elanchezhian
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Karthik Jaganath Government Advocate

Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, and it is to be provided strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Lapse of time can be a ground to deny appointment on compassionate grounds.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Denial of Appointment - 2021 (15) Scale 174, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father, who was a government employee. The application was forwarded to the District Collector, but almost 13 years had passed since the death of the deceased employee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It emphasized that appointment on compassionate grounds is to be provided strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated and lapse of time is also a ground to deny appointment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment after a significant lapse of time following the death of the deceased employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments to establish that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public services and is in favor of the dependents of a deceased employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the direction sought for to consider the representation of the writ petitioner for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds at this length of time cannot be granted.

ORDER :

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents herein to provide an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground forthwith.

2. The petitioner states that his father Late Thiru.C.Paramasivam served as Assistant Glass Bowler in the office of the third respondent and died on 21.12.2009, while he was in service.

3. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 08.06.2010. The application was not considered and it was forwarded to the second respondent/District Collector, Coimbatore to provide appointment on compassionate ground in any other Department, since there was no vacancy in the Department of the third respondent.

4. It is not in dispute that the application submitted by the writ petitioner was forwarded to the second respondent to consider the same by including his name in the general wait list for the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds. The District Collector, in letter dated 11.01.2014, has informed the petitioner that his application will be considered based on the seniority and based on the availability of vacancy in various Departments.

5. Compassionate appointment is a concession. Thus, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Compassionate appointment is to be provided strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated and lapse of time is also a ground to deny appointment, since the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death became vanished. The very purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden death of an employee. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be granted after a lapsed of several years. It is not as if one appointment can be granted to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. The genuine circumstances, warranting an appointment in the family of the deceased employee is to be considered with reference to the source of income and other mitigating factors. Thus, the authorities competent are bound to conduct a Field enquiry before considering the cases for compassionate appointment. Large scale compassionate appointments would infringe the rights of all other citizen, who all are aspiring to secure public employee through open competitive process. Thus, the compassionate appointments are to be restricted, so as to appoint the persons, who all are genuinely deserving for such appointment, but not otherwise.

6. In the present case, the Department in which the father of the writ petitioner served, there was no vacancy. Thus, the application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the 2nd respondent / District Collector, Coimbatore. The District Collector, Coimbatore, has registered the application of the petitioner along with all other candidates, who all are waiting for compassionate appointment. Now, almost 13 years lapsed from the date of death of the deceased employee.

7. The principles regarding the compassionate appointment are laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:

    (a) The Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Amrita Sinha in C.A.No.7640 –7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 (2021 (15) Scale 174) held in Paragraph No.10 as follows :

“The monthly pension which was payable to the respondent was required to be taken into account in the award of merit points. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that pension is paid for past service rendered by the employee and, hence, denial of compassionate appointment on that basis was not justifiable. This reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious. Undoubtedly, pension is not an act of bounty, but is towards the service which has been rendered by an employee. However, in evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon the death while in service. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is provided in

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