Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A.Sridevi – Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) – Respondent
W.P.No.25229 of 2018
Decided on : 21-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Damodaran
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favor of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - O.S.No.78 of 2005 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [Compassionate Appointment, Writ Petition, Article 226] - The court discussed the principles of compassionate appointment as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases and emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favor of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The court highlighted that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement and that it is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The court also emphasized that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee, and the avocation of the other members of the family.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to disburse the terminal benefits in accordance with a decree and judgment from a civil court and consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the respondent Department. The petitioner's father died in 2004, and a family dispute arose regarding the distribution of benefits. The petitioner was declared as a legal heir of the deceased employee and entitled to a share in the terminal benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be executed through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also ruled that compassionate appointment cannot be considered after a long time from the date of death of the deceased employee, emphasizing that the object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising from the sudden death of an employee.
Issues: The issues revolved around the execution of the decree passed by the Civil Court through a writ petition and the eligibility for compassionate appointment based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favor of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It also highlighted that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement and that it is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to disburse the terminal benefits in accordance with the decree and judgment dated 27.09.2012 in O.S.No.78 of 2005, District Munsif Court, Palani and consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the respondent Department.
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to disburse the terminal benefits in accordance with the decree and judgment dated 27.09.2012 in O.S.No.78 of 2005, District Munsif Court, Palani and consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the respondent Department.
2. The petitioner states that her father died on 01.11.2004 and she made an application on 08.11.2004, requesting appointment on compassionate grounds. The deceased employee had two wives and the petitioner is the daughter of the first wife and the second wife also has got two sons. Thus, there was a family dispute and the parties approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.78 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani. The Suit was decreed on 27.09.2012 and the petitioner states that she was declared as a legal heir of the deceased employee and entitled to 1/4th share in the terminal benefits of the deceased employee.
3. The present writ petition is filed, seeking implementation of the decree passed by the Civil Court. The decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be executed by filing a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Decrees are to be executed only by following the procedures contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the petitioner if at all aggrieved, has to approach the competent Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the very relief sought for in the present writ petition to direct the respondents to disburse the terminal benefits as per the decree in O.S.No.78 of 2005 is untenable.
4. Secondly, compassionate appointment is to be provided based on the terms and conditions stipulated under the scheme. In the present case, the deceased employee died in the year 2004 and already 18 years lapsed. The petitioner is also now aged about 39 years. That apart, there was a family dispute during the relevant point of time and counter application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was also filed by the children of the second wife. On account of the dispute, the respondents were not in a position to consider the applications for providing appointment on compassionate grounds. At this length of time, appointment cannot be provided under the scheme of compassionate appointment, since efflux of time is also a ground to reject the application. The penurious circumstances if at all existed at the time of the death of an employee, now after long time, an inference is to be drawn that such circumstances became vanished. The object of the scheme is not to provide one appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. It is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. Thus, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered after long years from the date of death of the deceased employee.
5. 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
