Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20697
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.Elayaraja – Appellant
Versus
The regional Manager – Respondent
The court established that applications for compassionate appointments must adhere to current policies at the time of application, emphasizing timely action from applicants.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Compassionate Grounds - None Specified - The court affirmed that application for compassionate appointment must comply with the prevailing policy at the time of request and highlighted the importance of timely application and response.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the rejection of a compassionate appointment request following the applicant's father's death, citing delays and policy changes as the basis for denial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection was justified due to significant time lapses and the introduction of a new exgratia payment scheme, dismissing the petitioner's claims as lacking merit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was justified given the elapsed time since the father's death and the introduction of a new scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The norms applicable at the time of the application are the basis for assessment, not the norms at the time of the father's death, and timely submission is critical for compassionate appointment claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing for a request for exgratia payment instead.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 25.11.2021, thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner's father, while he was working as an Armed Guard in the respondents Bank, died on 26.06.2000 leaving behind the petitioner's mother, three daughters and two sons. The petitioner's mother sought for appointment on compassionate ground, on 06.04.2001 to the petitioner. While considering the said request, the petitioner's mother was directed to submit documents and also raised certain queries. However, there was no response from the petitioner's mother. Thereafter, once again his mother submitted a representation on 26.10.2014 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, on 15.02.2021, the petitioner made request for appointment on compassionate ground and the same was rejected on 25.11.2021. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reason for rejection of the request made by the petitioner is that the respondents introduced a new scheme for “Payment of exgratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground”. The said scheme was introduced with effect from 04.08.2005. He further submitted that whatever the scheme prevailed on the date of application submitted by the petitioner's mother seeking employment would apply and the subsequent scheme introduced by the respondents would not apply as a whole for considering the application submitted by the petitioner seeking employment on compassionate ground.
5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP Diary No.37920 of 2023, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs Abhishek Kumar , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“ 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would refer to the status report filed on 31.01.2024 to indicate that fresh consideration was made by the Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh on 16.10.2023 under the policy prevalent in the year 2017. However, even under the earlier 2017 policy, the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment was found to be unmerited since the employee at the time of his death on 14.09.2017, was aged over 50 years and the income criteria was exceeded.
8. A three Judges Bench of this Court in N.C.
Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 [authored by one of us], after considering various earlier judgments opined that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The following ratio is extracted for ready reference:
"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee."
9. The consideration of the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment under the 2019 policy applicable at the time of consideration of the application is consistent with the above ratio in N.C. Santhosh (supra). The fresh consideration made on 16.10.2023, also resulted in rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment but the same was considered under the policy prevalent at the time of the death of the respondent's father on 14.09.2017. Such consideration is found to be made by wrongly applying the earlier nor
