Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and is provided to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service.

ORDER :

[Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent with regard to the order passed in Ref.No.10581/VA.9/2017-2 dated 07.09.2017 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to any eligible and existing vacancies.]

1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his father Late Rathnam was working as Forest Ranger and died on 27.10.2005, while he was in service. The deceased employee had two wives and the petitioner is the daughter, born through the second wife of the deceased employee.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the brother of the writ petitioner submitted an application, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee. However, he had not pursued the application. There was a dispute within the family, more specifically between the first wife children and second wife children.

4. The application of the brother of the writ petitioner was not considered since the brother of the writ petitioner has not produced the legal heir certificate along with the application. The legal heir certificate was not issued on account of the family dispute between the first wife and the second wife. Civil Suit was instituted and the litigation came to an end on 11.06.2012. Thereafter, the respective parties approached the Revenue authorities and obtained legal heir certificate.

5. The petitioner submitted an application on 22.01.2014, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, after a lapse of more than 8 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Thus, the authorities competent rejected her application on the ground that the application was received after a lapse of 8 years from the date of death of the deceased employee and further, the petitioner is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased employee. Therefore, as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the legal heir certificate was not submitted due to the family dispute between the first wife and the second wife of the deceased employee and the Civil Suit was instituted, which was pending during the relevant point of time. However, those facts are irrelevant as far as the compassionate appointment is concerned.

7. The very purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. Thus, the appointment is to be made within a reasonable period of time and long delay in considering the application itself is a ground to reject the same since the penurious circumstances if at all aroused, on account of efflux of time, it became vanished. Thus, the delay is also a ground to deny appointment on compassionate grounds.

8. 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 evaluati