Compassionate appointment is a concession and not an absolute right, to be provided within a reasonable period of time from the date of death of the deceased employee, in accordance with the State's policy and eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.,B1/3004/2013 dated 06.01.2015 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground arising on account of death of late Muthusamy who was working as Cook in Backward Class Students Hostel, Veradarajanpettai within the stipulated time.)

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

2. The petitioner states that his father late Mr.N.Muthusamy was working as Cook in Backward Class Students Hostel, Varadarajanpettai and died on 31.10.2006 while he was in service.

3. The petitioner states that he is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee late Mr.N.Muthusamy. The 4th respondent Mr.Manikandan and one Miss.Sathya were born to the first wife of the deceased employee. Late Mrs.Sarasu, the first wife pre-deceased the father of the writ petitioner. It is stated that the children of the first wife and the second wife were the dependents of the deceased employee and the mother of the writ petitioner was a daily wage labour. The petitioner states that he submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. On account of the family dispute between the children of the first wife and the second wife and her children, the issues are not resolved and even the terminal and pensionary benefits due to the deceased employee is yet to be settled.

4. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, the order of rejection was passed on the ground that the children of the first wife are elder than the writ petitioner and therefore, they have to consider at the first instance for providing employment on compassionate ground as per the terms and conditions. It is an admitted fact that the son of the first wife is elder than the writ petitioner and he has not furnished any no objection for providing appointment to the writ petitioner. In the event of submitting an application for providing appointment to any other legal heirs, then the remaining legal heirs have to issue no objection for the purpose of providing appointment. In the present case, no such no objection was issued by the children of the first wife and therefore the application submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected.

5. Compassionate appointment is a concession and can never be claimed as an absolute right. Scheme being violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. The very purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee.

6. Compassionate appointment is to be provided within a reasonable period of time from the date of death of the deceased employee. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the sudden death of an employee became vanished. Thus, Courts have repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after several years. It is not as if the scheme is contemplated to provide appointment to the family of the deceased employee.

7. Even recently, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Premlata reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30, made observations in respect of implementation of the scheme of compassionate appointment and the relevant portion of the order is 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 [(2021) 12 SCC 20], ha