Compassionate appointment is a concession and should be restricted to genuinely deserving families, with strict scrutiny of various parameters.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent vide Letter Na.Ka.No.24082/tho.nu.pa 4/2016 dated 02.08.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide appropriate employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the third respondent's office.)

1. The order of rejection dated 02.08.2016 in Na.Ka.No.24082/tho.nu.pa 4/2016 passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that her husband late V.Gopinathan was appointed as Workshop Assistant on temporary basis. The husband of the petitioner died on 04.10.2009, while he was in service. The sudden death of the employee resulted in penurious circumstances and therefore, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded.

3. The petitioner further states that she has completed X standard in April 1997 and registered her name in District Employment Office at Chennai. The application was rejected through the impugned order by the second respondent on the ground that the husband of the petitioner died before granting the benefit of regularization and therefore, he died as a temporary employee and thus, the claim of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to the family of the deceased employee. It is specifically stated that the husband of the petitioner died on 04.10.2009 and the Government issued the order granting regularization on 03.02.2010 i.e. after the death of the husband of the petitioner and therefore, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be applied for the temporary employees.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court has considered several cases for compassionate appointment and more specifically, by taking a lenient view. He relied on certain orders of this Court, wherein, the respondents were directed to consider or reconsider the applications submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased employee seeking appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, similar consideration has to be shown to the petitioner also.

5. Regarding the orders relied on by the petitioner that the Courts have directed to consider the application for providing compassionate appointment, this Court has to look into the principles settled and the consequences of issuing such directions to consider the representation or otherwise.

6. The Courts are expected to decide the issues on merits at all circumstances. Merely issuing a direction to consider the cases would do no service to the cause of justice. Litigants will be back again to the Courts by way of another litigation and thus, the issues are to be settled in the interest of the parties and in the interest of justice. The growing practice is that the litigant approaching the Court are repeatedly approaching in respect of the same grievance by filing several writ petitions and contempt petitions. Such multiplicity of proceedings on the same grievance would result in harassment and the litigant may loose faith on the judicial system. Thus, the High Court cannot encourage such practice of multiplicity of litigations on the same cause or by the same litigant regarding the grievances. Once a litigation is instituted, the Court must resolve the issues by deciding the disputes between the parties. Then alone, the level of confidence can be maintained amongst the public at large, which is a constitutional principles. Contrarily, the Courts issuing a direction in a routine manner without deciding the issues will certainly result in multiplicity of litigations and therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any such direction to consider the case of the petitioner, since the respondents filed counter affidavit