Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in public services and is meant to enable the family to tide over a sudden crisis, not to provide the family with a post held by the deceased.

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 23.12.2014 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.2420 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 dated December 2014 issued by the second respondent/Chennai Port Trust, 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 G. Jeyabalan served in Chennai Port Trust and died on 01.05.1998, while he was in service. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on 10.06.1999 and the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment was not extended to the petitioner by the respondents during the relevant point of time.

3. Pursuant to the Government of India directions issued in G.O.No.14014/19/2022, Estt (D) dated 05.05.2003, the Chennai Port Trust paid the compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, since the Port Trust was not in a position to provide compassionate appointment to large number of applicants. Pursuant to the scheme of ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment, the legal heirs of the deceased employee during the relevant point of time, had received the compensation and consequently, the applications submitted by them were closed by the respondent/Chennai Port Trust.

4. After a lapse of several years from the date of the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner has again submitted an application to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. Such an application submitted in the year 2014 by the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner died on 01.05.1998, while in service at the age of 49 years and the application for compassionate appointment has been filed after a lapse of about 16 years from the date of death of the deceased employee and after receiving the compensation amount from the first respondent. Thus, the application itself was rejected.

5. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Scheme is to be implemented scrupulously in accordance with the terms and conditions. The purpose and object of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. Thus, it is not as if one appointment is to be granted to the family of the deceased employee. In genuine circumstances, the appointment is to be provided within a reasonable period from the date of death of the deceased employee. Contrarily, compassionate appointment cannot be provided after a lapse of many years and in such circumstances, an inference to be drawn that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee became vanished. Thus, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be extended after a lapse of about several years.

6. In the present case, the father of the writ petitioner died in the year 1998 and the first application submitted was considered and as per the Government of India orders, compensation was paid to the family of the deceased employee and thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to provide appointment on compassionate grounds after a lapse of about several years, which was rejected.

7. 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.76