P. Kalidas vs The Chief Engineer-Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Superintending Engineer

K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. S.Harihara Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Panneerselvam, learned

Counsel representing Mr. V.Kasinathan, appearing for the Respondents.

The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated 22.02.2007 and after setting aside the same, he seeks for

a compassionate appointment in the service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

In the Writ Petition, notice of motion was ordered on 22.02.2010. By the impugned order dated 22.02.2007, the Petitioner was informed that

his father late P.R.Perumal, who was working as a wire man, died on 06.06.1999 and he had applied for the post on 07.02.2007. As per the

Board rules found in B.P. No. 46, dated 13.10.1995, a person will have to be registered for such employment within three years after the death of the employee and the candidate must have 18 years of age and also must have passed eighth standard. If the Petitioner does not come within the scheme framed by the Board, the Petitioner cannot be granted any relief.

Mr. S.Harihara Ramachandran. learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in P. Rajamani v. The

Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and two Ors. reported in 2007 W L.R. 306, in support of his contention and contended that the order passed by the Board was not valid. He also referred to another unreported judgment of this Court dated 30.03.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.

1652 of 2006 [The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. v. S. Suder]. This Court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the Petitioner.

In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rani Devi and Another, , the Supreme Court, while examining the object of compassionate appointment,

pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was a dependant of the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 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. In the aforesaid case, it was held that if the scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground is extended to all types of casual or adhoc employees including those who worked as apprentices, then such scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.

In the decision reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, , it was pointed out that the

High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benedication impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointment on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointment.

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , it was noted that as a rule in public service, appointment should be made strictly

on the basis of open invitation of application 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 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 Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate

grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the word was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisages specifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major, he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit.

In State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, , it was held that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant

dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments.

In Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, , the Supreme Court observed that appointment on compassionate ground is

not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of making appointments on open invitation of application on merits. The basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.

In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi Anr. (cited supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows;

It was impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because the right to such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.

[Emphasis supplied]

It is, thus, clear that the Courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds de hors the provisions of the Scheme in force governed

by rules/regulations/instructions. If in a given case, the department of the Government concerned declines, as a matter of policy, not to deviate from the mandate of the provisions underlying the Scheme and refuses to relax the stipulation in respect of ceiling fixed therein, the Courts cannot compel the authorities to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way and that too, by relaxing the essential conditions, when no grievance of violation of substantial rights of parties could be held to have been provided otherwise. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a

Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after the death of the employee. The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness when there is no other earning member in the family.

A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in E. Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, after reviewing all the above cases

observed as follows:

In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , the Supreme Court has expressly held that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. An application made after the period stipulated under the scheme is not maintainable,

and it is not permissible to hold that such application could be made after attaining majority. We are afraid, the Division Bench which rendered the judgment in Indiraniammal v. Chief Engineer (Personnel), the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No. 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 and Anr. (supra) has not followed the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and does not lay down correct law. The order of the learned single Judge in Meer Ismail

Ali. T v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) is rather cryptic where the learned single Judge has observed that without going into the merits of the controversy the Petitioner be given employment on humanitarian consideration. None of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited above are

considered.

In the light of the above binding precedents of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court, the request of the Petitioner cannot be

considered. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. No costs.