Compassionate appointments cannot be canceled without adherence to due process, including prior notice, as failure to do so constitutes a violation of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The respondents in O.A.No.1946 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, are the petitioners in this original petition filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , seeking an order to set aside Ext.P5 order dated 15.02.2023 of the Tribunal in that original application. The said original application was one filed by the respondent herein- applicant, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking an order to set aside Annexure A6 Government order dated 04.10.2018 cancelling the appointment of the applicant as Clerk/Village Assistant in Revenue Department, by way of compassionate appointment, on account of the death of her husband, Aboobacker C.T, who died in harness on 28.05.2015, while working as Village Field Assistant in the Revenue Department; a declaration that the applicant is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits as if Annexure A6 order dated 04.10.2018 was never issued at all; and to direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue in service with all consequential benefits as if Annexure A6 order was never issued at all.

2. The reliefs sought for in the original application were opposed by the 3^rd respondent District Collector by filing Ext.P2 reply statement dated 16.01.2019, which was followed by Ext.P3 reply statement dated 03.04.2019 filed by the 1^st respondent State. The applicant filed Ext.P4 rejoinder dated 24.05.2019 to the reply statements filed by respondents 1 and 3. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order dated 15.02.2023, allowed O.A.No.1946 of 2018, for the reasons stated therein. Paragraphs 9 to 12 of Ext.P5 order read thus;

“9. From Annexure A1 order it is clear that the applicant’s husband was re-appointed under the scheme for protecting the physically challenged candidates who had worked for a specified period. The applicant was found eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme, on being satisfied that the family of Aboobacker, who was holding a supernumerary post, was in need of immediate assistance, consequent to the death of its sole bread winner. Moreover, the nature of post held by the applicant’s husband cannot have any relevance as he was a government servant and appointments are not made against the post vacated by the deceased government servant. The respondents have not produced any government order by which the government servants appointed in supernumerary posts are excluded from the purview of the compassionate employment scheme which is available to government servants or by which the meaning or definition of government servant under para 4 of the government order dated 24.05.1999, is restricted so as to make the scheme inapplicable to those appointed in supernumerary post on the basis of Annexure A1 order. Annexure A1 order which was issued in the year 2013 was not even in contemplation when the compassionate employment Scheme was formulated in the year 1999. However creation of supernumerary posts and appointments in such posts were being made when the scheme was formulated. Therefore, the benefits available under the scheme can be denied only on the basis of separate orders specifically excluding them. In the absence of such an order, the respondents are not justified in denying the benefit of the scheme on the ground that the applicant’s husband was not a regular Government employee or that he was appointed in supernumerary post. As the rejection of the claim for appointment under the Scheme is denied on the ground that her husband was