Compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession, subject to strict scrutiny of financial position and eligibility criteria, and cannot be claimed after a significant lapse of time.

ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the Impugned Letter No.SCT5/6908/2014/GA dated --.12.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in any job based upon his seniority number D.R.2520 in the respondent’s Port Trust from 2005 duly permitting him to draw his arrears of pay and allowances and other benefits in the respective scale of pay retrospectively on par with his juniors A. Sumathi & Jayachitra.

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to provide appointment on compassionate grounds is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The mother of the writ petitioner Smt. Kamalammal served in Chennai Port Trust as Women Mazdoor in Chief Engineering Department. She was discharged from service with effect from 24.06.2000 on medical invalidation grounds, after putting 8 years of service. Thus, the petitioner made an application to provide appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.02.2001 in the format prescribed. The petitioner states that he submitted all the relevant documents for the purpose of considering his application. However, the said application was not considered on the ground that the mother of the writ petitioner was medically invalidated and relieved from service on 24.06.2000 from Chennai Port Trust service at the age of 47 years. Therefore, after a lapse of about 14 years from the medical invalidation, the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.

3. That apart, the employee has received a compensation package in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the decision of the Government of India.

4. It is not in dispute that the medically invalidated employee, who is the mother of the writ petitioner received a compensation package in lieu of compassionate appointment, after her medical invalidation with effect from 24.06.2000. Having received the compensation package instead of compassionate appointment, the petitioner cannot now submit an application after a lapse of 14 years on 29.07.2014 and the said application was rejected.

5. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity since the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right. It is a concession and therefore, it is to be granted strictly in accordance with the rules in force.

6. The principles regarding compassionate appointment was considered by the Apex Court in the following judgments :

(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 order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service. If the scheme requires that the family pension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application, it has to be followed.”

(b) In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739], wherein in paragraph-8 of its judgment, reiterated the principles to be adopted for providing ap