Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not an absolute right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. It is a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis, and the financial position of the family needs to be evaluated based on the provisions contained in the scheme.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide in Na.Nu.No.9547/A1/2004 dated 14.5.2015 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to give suitable job on compassionate ground.)

1.The impugned order of rejection dated 14.05.2015, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that the father of the writ petitioner Late Raman was working as a Sweeper in Government Higher Secondary School and died on 25.09.2002, while he was in service. The writ petitioner submitted an application on 30.10.2003 for providing an appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the respondents have not considered the same during the relevant point of time and after a lapse of 12 years, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order in proceedings dated 14.05.2015. The application was rejected on the ground that the younger brother of the writ petitioner Mr.Ramesh was appointed as a permanent employee of Vennandur Town Panchayat and therefore, the other legal heirs are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that if at all the application was considered during the relevant point of time, within a reasonable period of time, such ground would not have existed and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

4. Presumptive argument in this regard is of no avail to the writ petitioner. The fact remains that the employee died on 25.09.2002 and the application submitted on 30.10.2003 was not even pursued by the petitioner and only after the rejection order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the year 2015. Thus, the petitioner also had slept over his right. The reason stated that the younger brother of the writ petitioner is employed as a permanent employee is a disqualification for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the terms and conditions stipulated. Therefore, the respondents have rejected the application in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. Once any one of the legal heir of the deceased employee secured appointment in Government Departments or in private sector, then the other legal heirs are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that 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. It is not as if one appointment is to be provided to the family of the deceased employee. The indigency must be the criteria for the purpose of considering the application.

6. 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.

7. Scheme of compassionate appointment is in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Scheme being violative of the equality clause enunciated under the Constitution, it is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession. Scheme of compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, so also, concession can never be claimed as a matter of right. Excess appointment on compassionate ground would result in inefficiency in public administration. No selection is conducted. Rule of reservation has not been followed. Merit assessments are not made. That exactly is the reason why the Courts have held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitut