IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Karunampal - Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, TANGEDCO and ors. – Respondents
W.A.No.2437 of 2021
Decided On : 03-07-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Employment - Article 14, 16 - The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are not absolute rights and must adhere to constitutional mandates, requiring proof of indigent circumstances and merit assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought compassionate appointment for her third daughter after the death of her husband, but previous applications were rejected due to lack of evidence of indigent circumstances, as the daughters were married and the family received a pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the family did not establish indigent circumstances necessary for compassionate appointment, and the long delay in seeking employment indicated that the family's financial distress was not solely due to the employee's death.
Issues: Whether the appellant's family qualifies for compassionate appointment given the lack of evidence of indigent circumstances and the implications of long delays in application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate appointments must be strictly regulated, requiring proof of need and adherence to constitutional principles of equality and merit in public employment.
Result: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's order.
JUDGMENT :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.47 of 2021.
The scheme of compassionate appointment is a concession and not an absolute right. Compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment recognized under the Constitutional scheme of appointments. The scheme is formulated to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of sudden death of Government employees. Therefore, the scheme cannot be implemented beyond its scope, purpose and objects sought to be achieved. Terms and conditions stipulated are to be scrupulously followed. Long delay in providing compassionate appointments itself is a ground to reject the same by drawing factual inference that the penurious circumstances arosed on account of sudden death of an employee become vanished. Thus, scheme is to be implemented pragmatically to ensure that genuine families in distress on account of sudden death of an employee is provided with an assistance of employment. It is not as if one appointment is to be provided to the family of the deceased Government employee. The object is not to provide one appointment to each family, but to provide appointment to a family in distress on account of death of an employee.
2. The courts have consistently held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Contitution of India. All appointments are to be made under the constitutional scheme. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. Compassionate appointments are made without any merit assessment and the rules of reservations are not adopted. Mere death of an employee alone is the criteria to provide public employment. Lakh and lakh of meritorious candidates are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process. Therefore, enlarging the scope of compassionate appointment would result in infringement of basic right of those meritorious candidates aspiring to secure public employment. Thus, the scheme is to be implemented by making thorough assessment and the necessity to provide such appointment to the family of the deceased employee.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made observations that the terminal and retirement benefits paid to legal heirs are to be taken into consideration, while assessing indigent circumstances of the Government employee. A thorough enquiry regarding the income of the family is to be made by the employer before considering the case for compassionate appointments.
4. In the present case, the wife of the deceased employee filed writ appeal. It is the third round of litigation. Originally, W.P.No.5941 of 2016 was filed, which was dismissed. The writ appeal in W.A.No.573 of 2016 filed by the appellant ended with an order of direction to consider the case of the appellant, since there was no impediment to provide appointment to married daughters as on the date of application submitted by the appellant.
5. The appellant is seeking employment to her third daughter. All the daughters of the deceased employee got married and living with their respective husbands. Therefore, they could not able to establish penurious circumstances prevailing in the family of the deceased employee. The appellant is receiving family pension. In this context, the Division Bench directed the Authorities to consider the application, which was again considered by the respondents and rejected. Thus, the appellant filed another writ petition in W.P.No.22205 of 2019, to direct the respondents to provide job assistance on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation submitted by the appellant on 13.04.2018. The said representation was also rejected by the respondents in proceedings dated 17.06.2020. Thereafter, third writ petition was filed by the appellant in W.P.No.47 of 2021. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 06.01.2021,
AI
Compassionate appointments require proof of indigent circumstances and must comply with constitutional mandates, ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to constitutional provisions and must be strictly applied to prevent undermining the rights of eligible candidates.
Compassionate appointment is a concession granted under exceptional circumstances and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate, and c....
Compassionate appointments must be sought within a reasonable time frame, and the scheme cannot be invoked after significant delays, as it undermines the rights of other eligible candidates.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not an absolute right, and should be provided only to eligible candidates who can establish the genuineness of their claim.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not an absolute right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. The purpose of the scheme is to mitigate the circumstances....
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and should be made in accordance with the state's policy and eligibility criteria. It is not a matter of right and is intended to enable ....
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and should be granted based on fulfilling the eligibility criteria and the family's financial condition. It is not a matter of right and ....
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 ....
Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, and should be strictly implemented in accordance with the prevailing rules and parameters.
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.