A. Karuppaiah vs The Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordinance Factory Board and The General Manager, Ordinance Factory

K. Chandru, J.—In all these 15 Writ Petitions, the petitioners are all wait listed persons kept in the list of persons eligible for employment

assistance on account of the death of their near relative in harness while working the employment of the second respondent factory. Since during

the wait period, their turn for employment never arose, by the impugned order, they were informed that there was remote possibility of their getting

employment as the list had lapsed. They were also further informed that the family pension, terminal benefits were received from the factory was

substantial, there was no necessity to grant any employment assistance on compassionate grounds. It is this order, which is under challenge.

All these Writ Petitions was admitted on 16.2.2006. The respondents have also filed counter affidavits. In each of the counter affidavit, the

second respondent had stated the details of the family members of the deceased workman as well as the quantum of the benefits available to the

family on account of the death of their near relative and stated that they are not entitled for any compassionate appointment and that the wait period

was also over. In the counter affidavit, heavy reliance was also placed on the circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Public Grievance

and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) vide letter dated 5th May 2003 in ref F. No. 14014/19/2002 Estt(D). In the light of

the same, it was stated that the request of the petitioners cannot be considered.

Heard the arguments of Mr. M.Subash Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Central Government Counsel and

have perused the records.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders have been passed in stereo- typed letter and on that short ground, those orders

are liable to be set aside. It was pointed out to him that the counter-affidavits filed by the second respondent contained detailed reasoning for the

rejection of the petitioners'' request. The learned Counsel took time to refute those details but the same was not forthcoming.

In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in

State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ankur Gupta, in para 6 held as follows:

As was observed in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi AIR 1996 SCW 3002 it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for

appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be

upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the

basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for

the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on

compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-Harness Scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective

of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi case it was held that the scheme regarding appointment on

compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot be justified on

constitutional grounds. In LIC of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar AIR 1994 SCW 1947 it was pointed out that the High courts and

Administrative Tribunals can not confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds

when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of

Haryana AIR 1994 (4) SCC 138 that as a rule, in public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of

applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid

requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In

such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made

in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

In fact, when a similar order based the circular of the D.O.P.T, when questioned, this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 11047 of 2005

[K.Krishnamoorthi v. The Station Director, All India Radio, Chennai and another], by an order dated 11.7.2007 rejected the said contention and

it was held as follows in paragraph 6:

It is held that the appointment on compassionate aground is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not a new source

of recruitment. The Court can only enforce the Rules, which are in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the

Government had framed the Rule including prescription of time limit, the Court out of any sympathy cannot expand the scope of the Rule.

In fact, the very same circular of the D.O.P.T was challenged in the case of Sivanantha Perumal, President, Tuticorin Port Deceased Employees

Dependants Welfare Society v. Union of India and others vide W.P.NO.2269 of 2006 and the DOPT circular was upheld by judgment dated

17.9.2007. In para 3 of the judgment, it was observed as follows:

Under the impugned circular of the Central Government issued by the D.O.P.T dt.5.5.2003 a time limit for consideration of the cases relating to

employment assistance programme was fixed and all public sector Boards were asked to adhere to the same. This is in accordance with the

constitutional scheme in the matter of employment assistance and it cannot be attacked on grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution.

In the present case, the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioners and also kept them in the waiting list against the quota meant

for the employment assistance programme, when the same did not materialise within a reasonable period, their request was rejected by this Court.

It has also been satisfactorily explained the in the counter affidavit. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioners to interfere with the impugned

order. All the writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.