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) 2832

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:T.S. Mohamed Mohideen, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Venkatesan, Advocate.

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.

Headnote:

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

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