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) 2145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
B. Ramprakash - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represnted by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
WP No. 23331 of 2014
Decided On : 27-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Balan Haridass, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Anitha, Special Government Pleader.

Compassionate appointment is a concession granted under exceptional circumstances and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate, and compassionate appointments should be restricted in the interest of efficient public administration.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of Application - Article 226 - [Compassionate Appointment, Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, Constitutional Mandate] - The court discussed the scheme of compassionate appointment, emphasizing that it is a concession granted to government employees under exceptional circumstances and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court highlighted the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in public employment and the need to restrict compassionate appointments in the interest of efficient public administration. The judgment referenced various legal provisions and interpretations, including recent observations by the Supreme Court, to support its decision to dismiss the writ petition for compassionate appointment after a lapse of about 27 years.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his mother, who was a government employee. The application was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner's father was employed at the time of the mother's death, and the family was not in indigent circumstances.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the benefit of the compassionate appointment scheme cannot be extended to the petitioner after a lapse of about 27 years from the date of the mother's death.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the writ petitioner's application for compassionate appointment based on the employment status of the petitioner's father at the time of the mother's death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compassionate appointment is a concession granted under exceptional circumstances and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It also highlighted the need to provide equal opportunity in public employment and restrict compassionate appointments in the interest of efficient public administration.

Final Decision: The writ petition for compassionate appointment was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the order of the first respondent dated 27.11.2013 bearing Letter No.23663/Pol.XV/2011-18 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis in the suitable post.)

1. The order of rejection dated 27.11.2013, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his mother Smt.B.Yasodha was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the third respondent- Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore and died on 14.04.1995. The father of the writ petitioner, at the time of the death of his mother, was working as Packer in Lakshmi Machine Works, Coimbatore. The petitioner states that on account of the sudden death of his mother, the family of the writ petitioner was in penurious circumstances and submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected by the first respondent in proceedings dated 27.11.2013. The reason for rejection of the application submitted by the writ petitioner was on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner was employed on the date of the death of the deceased employee i.e., the mother of the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner's family was not in indigent circumstances and accordingly, the application of the writ petitioner was rejected by the first respondent.

3. The scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the Government Employee. Compassionate appointment is not a regular appointment, nor an appointment under the constitutional scheme. It is a concession granted to the Government employees on certain exceptional circumstances. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions, then alone the scheme can be extended, but not otherwise. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made in accordance with the rules and by providing equal opportunity to participate in the process of selection.

4. As far as the compassionate appointments are concerned, no selection is conducted, no suitability or eligibility is tested, but persons are appointed merely based on death of an employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment is to be restricted in the interest of the efficient public administration. No doubt, the Government has also restricted the compassionate appointments and it is to be extended only to the deserving family and more so, after a lapse of many years. Providing compassionate appointment after a lapse of many years would not only defeat the purpose and object of the scheme, but also the penurious circumstances arose on account of the sudden death became vanished. Thus, the lapse of time is also a ground to reject the claim for compassionate appointment. Number of judgments are delivered by this Court and the Government has also issued revised instructions for providing compassionate appointment in G.O.(Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020.

5. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata [(2022) 1 SCC 30], has made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the observations are extracted hereunder:

“8. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in State of Karnataka vs. V.Somayashree [(202

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