BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, S. SRIMATHY, JJ.
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai & Another - Appellant
Versus
G. Vasuki Bharathi - Respondent
W.A(MD)No. 734 of 2020 & C.M.P(MD)Nos. 4256 of 2020 & 870 of 2022
Decided On : 03-08-2022
Compassionate Appointment - Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Basis - G.O.Ms.No.202 dated 08.10.2007, G.O.Ms.No.120 - The Full Bench held that appointment on compassionate basis has to be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant G.O.'s or the scheme that has been framed by the employer and any deviation is not permissible. The scheme of appointment on compassionate ground does not enable the minor to file an application after attaining majority even though her application is beyond the period of three years.
Fact of the Case:
The writ appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.6493 of 2016 dated 28.05.2020. The case involved a dispute regarding the application for appointment on compassionate basis filed by a minor after attaining majority, which was belated as it was filed or renewed after three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench held that appointment on compassionate basis has to be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant G.O.'s or the scheme that has been framed by the employer and any deviation is not permissible. The scheme of appointment on compassionate ground does not enable the minor to file an application after attaining majority even though her application is beyond the period of three years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground enables a minor to file an application after attaining majority even though her application is beyond the period of three years.
Ratio Decidendi: The Full Bench held that the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground does not enable the minor to file an application after attaining majority even though her application is beyond the period of three years.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, and the Full Bench held that the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground does not enable the minor to file an application after attaining majority even though her application is beyond the period of three years.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.05.2020 passed in W.P(MD)No.6493 of 2016 by this Court.)
S.S. Sundar, J.
Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.6493 of 2016 dated 28.05.2020, the above writ appeal is field.
2. Heard Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the application was submitted by the minor after attaining majority. However, it is not disputed that the application is belated in the sense that the application filed or renewed by the minor did not attain majority within a period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.
4. Though there were different views earlier a Full Bench of this Court considered this aspect in extenso and held that such application beyond three years which do not fall within the scheme for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. In the case of Nandini Dev vs. Secretary to Government in W.P. (MD) Nos.7016 of 2011 and batch of cases, disposed of by judgment dated 11.03.2020 similar issue arose for consideration. While answering the following reference,
“Whether the view taken in A.Kamatchi's case holding that an application for compassionate appointment made even beyond three years of the death of the deceased needs consideration, is the correct law or the judgment of the Division Bench in N.Renugadevi's case, where a contradictory view has been taken, is the correct law?"
the Full Bench has considered the issue in detail and held as follows:
“16. It is also well settled that there is no right to compassionate appointment and where there is a scheme for appointment on compassionate basis for the dependant of a person who has died in harness, then the family of the deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and for consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed in the scheme.
17. Even before the judgment in A.Kamatchi (supra) and Renugadevi (supra) were pronounced, a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 18.09.2006, in E.Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, W.A.Nos.336 of 2003, 997 of 2006 and 1006 of 2006 in a case arising for appointment of compassionate basis in the Electricity Board, after relying on various Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments and more particularly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 7 SCC 192, observed as under:-
16. It is, thus, clear that the courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds de hors the provisions of the Scheme in force governed by rules/regulations/instructions. If in a given case, the department of the Government concerned declines, as a matter of policy, not to deviate from the mandate of the provisions underlying the Scheme and refuses to relax the stipulation in respect of ceiling fixed therein, the courts cannot compel the authorities to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way and that too by relaxing the essential conditions, when no grievance of violation of substantial rights of parties could be held to have been provided, otherwise. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after the death of the employee. The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, w
Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2015 All. 47)
Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 6 SCC 481
Shreejith L. v. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala, (2012) 7 SCC 248 : (AIR 2012 SC 2665)
Union of India v. ShashankGoswami, (2012) 11 SC 307 : (AIR 2012 SC 2294)
Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow v. Prabhat Singh ((2013) 1 UPLBEC 357)
MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 : AIR 2013 SC 3365
Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : (AIR 1997 SC 3887)
Haryana State Electricity Board v. NareshTanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 7 SCC 192
E. Ramasamy v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Mohanambal Vs. The Director Land and Survey
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & another, (1996) 1 SCC 301
S.Mohan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India &Ors.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537]
SAIL v. Madhusudan Das [(2008) 15 SCC 560 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 378]
SBI v. Anju Jain [(2008) 8 SCC 475 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 724]
V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P. [(2008) 13 SCC 730 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 335]
SushmaGosain Vs. Union of India [1989 (4) SCC 468]
National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Vs. Nanak Chand [2004 (12) SCC 487]
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India [2011 (4) SCC 209]
State of Gujarat Vs. ArvindkumarT.Tiwari 2012 (9) SCC 545
Canara Bank Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412
The scheme of appointment on compassionate ground does not enable the minor to file an application after attaining majority even though her application is beyond the period of three years.
Compassionate appointment applications by minor dependents must be made within prescribed scheme time-limits; failure to adhere bars consideration post-attainment of majority.
Compassionate appointments must adhere to strict timelines and cannot be claimed as a right, emphasizing the need for timely applications to address immediate financial crises.
Compassionate appointments should consider actual hardships faced by dependants rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines, promoting social justice and support for indigent families.
Compassionate appointment must adhere to the prescribed regulations, and the purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee.
Compassionate appointments must be evaluated with a humanitarian approach, especially for minors at the time of the employee's death, and rigid application of time limits is not appropriate.
Grant of compassionate appointment - Purpose of compassionate grounds appointments to tide over sudden crisis resulting from death of earner in a family. However reservation of a vacancy to enable su....
Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can only be granted if the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria, including the time limit for submitting the application and the minimum....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.